European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e ... · European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e-Health ... With the aim to benchmark the level of eHealth use

Report EUR 26357 EN

20 13

Author: Ramon Sabes-Figuera

Editor: Fabienne Abadie

Country Reports

European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e-Health Services (2012–2013)

European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies Contact information Address: Edificio Expo. c/ Inca Garcilaso, 3. E-41092 Seville (Spain) E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +34 954488318 Fax: +34 954488300 http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu This publication is a Scientific and Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Legal Notice Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu/.

JRC85927

EUR 26357 EN

ISBN 978-92-79-34778-8 (pdf)

ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

doi:10.2791/55973

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013

© European Union, 2013

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Spain

1

Preface

A widespread uptake of eHealth technologies is likely to benefit European Healthcare systems both in terms of quality of care and financial sustainability and European society at large. This is why eHealth has been on the European Commission policy agenda for more than a decade. The objectives of the latest eHealth action plan developed in 2012 are in line with those of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Digital Agenda for Europe.

This report, based on the analysis of the data from the "European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking deployment of e-Health services (2012–2013)" project, presents policy relevant results and findings for each of the 28 EU Member States as well as Iceland and Norway.

The results highlighted here are based on the analysis of the survey descriptive results as well as two composite indicators on eHealth deployment and eHealth availability and use that were developed based on the survey's data.

3

Table of Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Country Report Austria .................................................................................................................................. 9

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11

3. Descriptive statistics and indicators .............................................................................................................................. 12

4. Composite indicators .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

Country Report Belgium .............................................................................................................................. 18

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19



Country Report Bulgaria ............................................................................................................................. 25

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 27

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27



Country Report Croatia ............................................................................................................................... 35

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 37



Country Report Cyprus ................................................................................................................................ 43

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 44

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 44



Country Report Czech Republic ................................................................................................................ 51

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 52

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52



Country Report Denmark ............................................................................................................................ 58

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59

4



Country Report Estonia ............................................................................................................................... 65

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 66

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 66



Country Report Finland ............................................................................................................................... 72

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 73

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 73



Country Report France ................................................................................................................................ 79

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 80

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 80



Country Report Germany ............................................................................................................................ 87

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 88

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 88



Country Report Greece ................................................................................................................................ 95

1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................................. 96

2. Sample analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 96


4. Composite indicators ........................................................................................................................................................... 100

Country Report Hungary ........................................................................................................................... 103

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 104

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 104

3. Descriptive statistics and indicators ........................................................................................................................... 105


Country Report Iceland ............................................................................................................................. 111

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 112

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 112


5


Country Report Ireland .............................................................................................................................. 118

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 119

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 119



Country Report Italy ................................................................................................................................... 126

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 127

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 127



Country Report Latvia ............................................................................................................................... 134

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 135

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 135



Country Report Lithuania ......................................................................................................................... 142

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 143

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 143



Country Report Luxembourg ................................................................................................................... 149

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 150

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 150



Country Report Malta ................................................................................................................................ 155

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 156

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 156



Country Report The Netherlands ........................................................................................................... 161

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 162

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 162



6

Country Report Norway ............................................................................................................................. 169

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 170

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 170



Country Report Poland .............................................................................................................................. 177

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 178

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 178



Country Report Portugal ........................................................................................................................... 185

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 186

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 186



Country Report Romania .......................................................................................................................... 193

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 194

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 194



Country Report Slovakia ........................................................................................................................... 201

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 202

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 202



Country Report Slovenia ........................................................................................................................... 209

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 210

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 210



Country Report Spain ................................................................................................................................. 216

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 217

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 217



7

Country Report Sweden ............................................................................................................................ 224

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 225

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 225



Country Report United Kingdom ............................................................................................................ 232

1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................... 233

2. Sample analysis ..................................................................................................................................................................... 233



9


Country Report Austria

11

1. Background

With the aim to benchmark the level of eHealth use in acute hospitals in all 27 EU Member States and Croatia, Iceland and Norway (EU27+3), a survey was launched to: (i) gather and analyse data on deployment, that is comparable to a 2010 similar survey; (ii) compute a composite index and use it to monitor evolution of adoption over time; and (iii) develop a new index that will monitor availability and use of eHealth.

In total 26,551 healthcare establishments in EU27+3, were contacted and screened to help define an as much homogeneous group of hospitals as possible. In total, 5424 qualified as acute care hospitals1, and of those 1717 completed the interview, 49 questions with an average duration of 43 minutes, over the period October 2012 -January 2013. The survey targeted Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and it was carried out via Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI). The novelty of this survey is that it includes a number of questions that enable the comparison of availability and use of eHealth specific functionality; this set of questions is compatible with OECD early guidelines, as well as with the equivalent part of a similar survey among Europeans General Practitioners2.

This document reports the results of this project for Austria. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Austria are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

242 hospitals were identified in Austria. Within this rough universe 201 (83%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 132 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (7% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of private, profit and non-profit, ownership (52% vs. 36%). Out of the Austrian universe, 43 acute hospitals (33%) completed the survey.

Table 1: Austrian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Austria N= Fewer than

101 beds

Between 101 and

250 beds

Between 251 and

750 beds

More than 750

beds

Don’t know/

No answer

2012 Census 132 9 60 46 14 3

7% 45% 35% 11% 2%

2012 sample 43 2 21 16 4 -

5% 49% 37% 9% -

2010 sample 15 1 9 5 - -

7% 60% 33% - -

1 This criterion was based on whether respondents considered that the hospital was an acute or general hospital and in case they did not, whether they reported that the hospital had an emergency department, and at least one of the following: a) routine and/or life-saving surgery operating room; and/or b) an intensive care unit.

2 Benchmarking Deployment of eHealth among General Practitioners (2013). ISBN 978-92-79-31130-7 DOI: 10.2759/24556"

12

Table 2: Austrian sample breakdown by ownership type

Austria N= Public Private Private not for

profit

Don't know/

No answer

Census 132 55 25 35 17

42% 19% 27% 13%

2012 43 20 7 14 2

47% 16% 33% 5%

2010 15 10 2 3 -

67% 13% 20% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Austrian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with more private and larger hospitals than in 2010.

3. Descriptive statistics and indicators

Using 13 eHealth indicators derived from the specific answers to the questionnaire, an eHealth profile has been constructed for each country and is represented through a spider diagram. These diagrams have scores ranging from 0 to 5, which respectively correspond to a 0% to 100% implementation rate. The 13 indicators cover the following 4 thematic areas:

Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring. Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI) with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours: The results for some of these indicators are also reported by groups of hospitals according to the ownership and size of the hospitals that completed the survey.

13

Figure 1: Austrian acute hospital eHealth profile

Note: The scoring scale from 0 to 5 points corresponds to an implementation rate from 0% to 100%.

Table 3 – eHealth indicators Austria

eHealth indicators - Austria Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Austria vs.EU27+3

Austria evolution,

2012 vs. 20103

Infrastructure

Externally connected 43 91% 14% -3%

Broadband > 50Mbps 40 35% -1% -32%

Single and unified wireless 43 60% 20% -13%

Single EPR shared by all departments 41 73% 16% 0%

Applications

PACS usage 43 100% 29% 20%

ePrescribing 43 16% -30% 3%

Integrated system for eReferral 43 42% 4% 15%

Tele-monitoring 43 7% -3% 7%

Integration Exchange of clinical care information with external providers

43 88% 33% 22%

Exchange of laboratory results with external providers

41 83% 32% 16%

Exchange of radiology reports with external providers

43 91% 36% 31%

Security Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data

43 88% 3% -5%

EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours

43 58% 10% -35%

Note: Results are based on valid answers only - bases (n) may differ from the ones reported here

3 These results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

0

1

2

3

4

5Externally connected

Broadband > 50Mbps

Single and unified wireless

Single EPR shared by all departments

PACS usage

ePrescribing

Integrated system for eReferralTele-monitoring

Exchange of clinical care information with external

providers



Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data


EU27+3 (n=1753) Austria 2010 (n=15) Austria 2012 (n=43)

14

Position of the Austrian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Austria noticeably scores better than the average EU27+3 in four main areas: “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “PACS usage”. In each of these areas, Austrian results exceed EU average by a 32% to 36%. In most other areas, Austria's results corresponds more or less to the European average, with the exception of “ePrescribing”- where the country´s results appear to be significantly lower (-30%), suggesting room for improvement.

Changes in the Austrian eHealth profile

Since 2010, Austria appears to have improved in many of the areas where its results are higher than European averages; “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “PACS usage”. However, this is not a general trend, as three values recorded in 2010 were higher than the corresponding 2012 values: “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Single and unified wireless”. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Out of the 13 indicators included and analysed in the eHealth profile, 5 were selected to explore variability in the results according to size and ownership of the hospitals.

Figure 2: Austrian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership

Note: Results are based on valid answers only - category bases may vary from the total reported here.

Taking ownership type into account we observe that “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” all reach high scores across acute hospitals regardless of ownership type. Additionally, “PACS usage” appears to be universal among Austrian acute hospitals, with 100% deployment across all ownership categories.

15

Results differ markedly for two other areas, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Single EPR shared by all departments”. For these, broad variations can be observed depending on the ownership category. 56% of Public hospitals enjoyed broadband access above the 50Mbps threshold, while only 1 out the 7 Private hospitals gave a similar statement. Similarly, 16 out of the 19 Public acute hospitals had a “Single EPR shared by all departments”, contrasting with 3 out of 6 for Private hospitals and 10 out of 14 for Private not for profit institutions.

Figure 3: Austrian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Taking the size of the hospitals into account, again we find that in most areas, there does not seem to be any difference among Austrian acute hospitals across most of the examined categories.

The only significant differences can be seen in the area of “Broadband > 50Mbps” where small and medium size hospitals (two categories which have between 101 and 750 beds) have a markedly lower broadband penetration, with only 5 out of 20 and 3 out of 11 hospitals respectively having high broadband penetration vs. 5 out of 8 hospitals for the very large hospitals (over 750 beds).

16

4. Composite indicators

The following section reports the results for Austria on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Austria´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Austria's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 43 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 35 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Austria eHealth Composite Indicators

17

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 15 hospitals) for Austria was 0.49, while the 2012 value was 0.56, which shows an increase of 7% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Austria and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a group of six hospitals with deployment above 0.5 but Effective use below 0.3. Only 3 hospitals were below EU+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 5: Austria's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

18


Country Report Belgium

19

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Belgium. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Belgium are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

436 hospitals were identified in Belgium. Within this rough universe 243 (56%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 120 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (3% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of private, profit and non-profit, ownership (56% vs. 36%). Out of the Belgian universe, 50 acute hospitals (42%) completed the survey.

Table 4: Belgian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Belgium N= Fewer than

101 beds

Between 101 and

250 beds

Between 251 and

750 beds

More than 750

beds

Don’t know/

No answer

Census 120

3 25 49 25 18

3% 21% 41% 21% 15%

2012 50 1 10 23 10 6

2% 20% 46% 20% 12%

2010 23 - 7 11 5 -

- 30% 48% 22% -

4 his criteria was based on whether respondents considered that the hospital was an acute or general hospital and in case they did not, whether they reported that the hospital had an emergency department, and at least one of the following: a) routine and/or life-saving surgery operating room; and/or b) an intensive care unit.


20

Table 5: Belgian sample breakdown by ownership type

Belgium N= Public Private Private not for

profit

Don't know/

No answer

Census 120

47 25 36 12

39% 21% 30% 10%

2012 50 23 13 13 1

46% 26% 26% 2%

2010 23 8 - 14 1

35% - 61% 4%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Belgian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has more than doubled, with more public hospitals than in 2010.



Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI) with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours: The results for some of these indicators are also reported by groups of hospitals according to the ownership and size of the hospitals that completed the survey.

Figure 4: Belgian acute hospital eHealth profile


21

Table 6: eHealth indicators Belgium

eHealth indicators - Belgium Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Belgium vs.EU27+3

Belgium evolution,

2012 vs. 20106

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 45 53% 18% 10%

Single and unified wireless 49 69% 29% 4%

Single EPR shared by all departments 49 73% 16% -5%

Applications

PACS usage 50 90% 19% -6%

ePrescribing 47 49% 2% 10%

Integrated system for eReferral 47 60% 22% -10%

Tele-monitoring 49 10% 0% 6%


49 92% 37% 1%


49 92% 41% 1%


50 76% 21% -11%


50 94% 9% 3%


49 47% -1% -27%


Position of the Belgian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Belgium scores better than the European average most notably in the following areas: “Externally connected”, “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single and unified wireless”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”. In particular “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” enjoy a substantial lead over the European average, with these areas having a 37% and 41% lead. However, with respect to “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”, “Tele-monitoring” and “ePrescribing”, Belgium either slightly lags behind the average or is very close to the average.

Changes in the Belgian eHealth profile

In the intervening period between this study and the last, it appears that Belgium’s eHealth profile has remained largely unchanged. With the exception of “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”, which recorded a decrease relative to the 2010 results, most other values occupy a similar range. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.



22

Figure 5: Belgian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Looking at the ownership types of Belgian hospitals, we can see a generally close range for the majority of the indicators. For “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, that the variation in percentage penetration is 10% or less in all three indicators. “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” has the largest variation of these three categories with a 10% variation between Public hospitals (95%) and Private hospitals (85%). Differences are more pronounced for “Single EPR shared by all departments”, with differences of 27 percentage points can be seen depending on the ownership type.

Figure 6: Belgian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


23

When we take hospital scale into consideration we can see more differentiation across multiple areas. With the exception of “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, all other areas show a large disparity between eHealth profile values. “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” all display relevant variations. However, it does not appear that scale is by itself a determinant of penetration in this context. For example, while the largest acute hospitals (over 750 beds) have 100% usage of “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and 69% of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, when we examine “Single EPR shared by all departments” the largest hospitals actually lag behind the smaller ones.


The following section reports the results for Belgium on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Belgium´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Belgium's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 48 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 43 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

24

Figure 4: Belgium eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. . In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 23 hospitals) for Belgium was 0.51, while the 2012 value was 0.55, which shows an increase of 4% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Belgium and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a group of 4 hospitals with deployment above 0.5 but Effective use below 0.3. Only 5 hospitals were below EU+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 5: Belgium's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

25


Country Report Bulgaria

27

1. Background


In total 26,551 healthcare establishments in EU27+3, were contacted and screened to help define an as much homogeneous group of hospitals as possible. In total, 5424 qualified as acute care hospitals7, and of those 1717 completed the interview, 49 questions with an average duration of 43 minutes, over the period October 2012 -January 2013. The survey targeted Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and it was carried out via Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI). The novelty of this survey is that it includes a number of questions that enable the comparison of availability and use of eHealth specific functionality; this set of questions is compatible with OECD early guidelines, as well as with the equivalent part of a similar survey among Europeans General Practitioners8

This document reports the results of this project for Bulgaria. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Bulgaria are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

388 hospitals were identified in Bulgaria. Within this rough universe 207 (53%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 109 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (34% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (74% vs. 64%). Out of the Bulgarian universe, 62 acute hospitals (57%) completed the survey.

Table 7: Bulgarian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Bulgaria N= Fewer than 101 beds

Between 101 and 250 beds


More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No answer

Census 109

35 32 30 6 6

32% 29% 28% 6% 6%

2012 62 22 17 18 3 2

35% 27% 29% 5% 3%

2010 15 5 3 4 3 -

33% 20% 27% 20% -



28

Table 8: Bulgarian sample breakdown by ownership type

Bulgaria N= Public Private Private not for

profit Don't know/ No answer

Census 109

73 24 1 11

67% 22% 1% 10%

2012 62 43 14 - 5

69% 23% - 8%

2010 15 11 3 1 -

73% 20% 7% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Bulgarian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has quadrupled, with a lower proportion of very large hospitals than in 2010.


Using 13 eHealth indicators derived from the specific answers to the questionnaire, an eHealth profile has been constructed for each country and is represented through a spider diagram. These diagrams have scores ranging from 0 to 5, which respectively correspond to a 0% to 100% implementation rate . The 13 indicators cover the following 4 thematic areas:


29

Figure 7: Bulgarian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 9: eHealth indicators Bulgaria

eHealth indicators - Bulgaria Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Bulgaria vs.EU27+3

Bulgaria evolution,

2012 vs. 20109

Infrastructure

Externally connected 62 60% -17% -14%

Broadband > 50Mbps 52 46% 11% 4%

Single and unified wireless 58 17% -23% -3%

Single EPR shared by all departments 61 39% -18% -7%

Applications

PACS usage 59 51% -20% 11%



Tele-monitoring 49 0% -10% -7%


57 44% -11% 44%


57 25% -27% 25%


56 20% -35% 20%


62 92% 7% -1%


60 45% -3% -19%



30

Position of the Bulgarian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Bulgaria noticeably scores worse than the average EU27+3 in in many areas; “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “PACS usage” are the areas with largest discrepancies. However, other areas fared better, with “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Integrated system for eReferral” all very close to the European average.

Changes in the Bulgarian eHealth profile

While Bulgaria scores worse than the European average, it has shown some significant advances within a two-year period. These advances are most noteworthy in the areas of “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” (+20%), “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” (+44%) and also “ePrescribing” (+33%). Two areas appear to have suffered contraction: “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” and “Externally connected” Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 8: Bulgarian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Areas as “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “PACS usage”) show important differences. between Public and Private hospitals. Looking across ownership types, Private hospitals appear to be generally better endowed with respect to eHealth facilities, with the exception of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, where Private hospitals lag behind Public hospitals

31

Figure 9: Bulgarian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


The clearest differences in eHealth profile become apparent when Bulgarian hospitals are differentiated by size. In every single category, hospitals with more than 750 beds outperform or equal hospitals of a smaller size segment. However, when looking at the other hospital size categories, the relationship between scales is less pronounced. For example, hospitals of between 251 and 750 beds score better than smaller hospitals in most categories, but they have low scores in the “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” category. Below this level, the relationship between scale and take-up is not clear, as hospitals with between 101 and 250 beds score higher than hospitals with fewer than 101 beds in only two categories


The following section reports the results for Bulgaria on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4

32

categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Bulgaria´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Bulgaria's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 51 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 59 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Bulgaria eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 11 hospitals) for Bulgaria was 0.22, while the 2012 value was 0.32, which shows an increase of 11% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Bulgaria and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a large group of hospitals with almost no effective use at various levels of deployment. Only 2 hospitals were above EU+3 average for both composite indicators.

33

Figure 5: Bulgaria's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

35


Country Report Croatia

37

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Croatia. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Croatia are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

75 hospitals were identified in Croatia. Within this rough universe 32 (43%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 22 qualified as acute care hospitals. There were no hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals, while the proportion of this type of hospitals among the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level was 21%. All the Croatian hospitals that qualified as acute were of public ownership (64% at EU27+3 level). Out of the Croatian universe, 11 acute hospitals (57%) completed the survey.

Table 10: Croatian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Croatia N= Fewer than 101 beds



More than 750 beds


Census 22

- 4 9 6 3

- 18% 41% 27% 14%

2012 11 - 2 6 2 1

- 18% 55% 18% 9%

2010 4 - 2 2 - -

- 50% 50% - -



38

Table 11: Croatian sample breakdown by ownership type

Croatia N= Public Private Private not for


Census 22

20 - - 2

91% - - 9%

2012 11 11 - - -

100% - - -

2010 4 4 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Croatian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with a lower proportion of very small hospitals than in 2010.




39

Figure 10: Croatian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 12 – eHealth indicators Croatia

eHealth indicators - Croatia Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Croatia vs.EU27+3

Croatia evolution,

2012 vs. 201012

Infrastructure

Externally connected 11 100% 24% 0%

Broadband > 50Mbps 11 27% -8% -73%

Single and unified wireless 11 18% -22% 18%


Applications

PACS usage 11 91% 20% 41%





11 73% 17% 23%


11 82% 31% 82%


10 50% -5% 25%


11 100% 15% 0%


11 64% 16% -11%

Note: Results are based on valid answers only - bases (n) may differ from the ones reported here.


0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Croatia 2010 (n=4) Croatia 2012 (n=11)

40

Position of the Croatian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Croatia remains close to the European average regarding the development of its eHealth profile, with variability across the range of examined indicators. Areas where Croatia performs better than the average EU27+3 include: “Externally connected”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Integrated system for eReferral”, “Tele-monitoring”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”. Compared the EU27+3 average, areas with lower scores included “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single and unified wireless”, and “ePrescribing”.

Changes in the Croatian eHealth profile

Interestingly, the development of Croatia’s eHealth profile has been strong between 2010 and 2012. Croatia demonstrated a healthy growth in eHealth endowment across the acute hospital sector. Five areas in particular recorded high growth: “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “ePrescribing”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Out of the 13 indicators included and analysed in the eHealth profile, 5 were selected to explore variability in the results according to size of the hospitals.

Figure 2: Croatian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


When taking the size of hospitals into account, we can see very good penetration of “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” across all size segments. Otherwise the results do not show any strong patterns.

41


The following section reports the results for Croatia on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Croatia´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Croatia's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 8 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 7 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 3: Croatia eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2012 Deployment 2012 Availability & Use

Croatia EU27+3

42

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 4 hospitals) for Croatia was 0.36, while the 2012 value was 0.38, which shows an increase of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Croatia and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that Only 1 hospital is below EU+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 4. Croatia's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

43


Country Report Cyprus

44

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Cyprus. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Cyprus are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

70 hospitals were identified in Cyprus. Within this rough universe 54 (77%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 22 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was considerably higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (89% vs. 21%) and there were less hospitals of public ownership (10% vs. 64%). Out of the Cypriot universe, 13 acute hospitals (59%) completed the survey.

Table 13: Cypriot sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Cyprus N= Fewer than 101 beds



More than 750 beds


Census 22

17 2 - - 3

77% 9% - - 14%

2012 13 9 2 - - 2

69% 15% - - 15%

2010 8 5 - 1 - 2

62% - 12% - 25%



45

Table 14: Cypriot sample breakdown by ownership type

Cyprus N= Public Private Private not for


Census 22 2 19 - 1

9% 86% - 5%

2012 13 1 12 - -

8% 92% - -

2010 8 4 4 - -

50% 50% - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Cypriot universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has increased, with a larger proportion of private hospitals than in 2010.




46

Figure 11: Cypriot acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 15 – eHealth indicators Cyprus

eHealth indicators - Cyprus Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Cyprus vs.EU27+3

Cyprus evolution,

2012 vs. 201015

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 10 10% -26% 10%



Applications

PACS usage 12 42% -29% 13%

ePrescribing 10 10% -37% -28%




10 30% -25% 13%


11 55% 3% 21%


11 64% 9% 47%


11 73% -13% -27%


11 45% -3% -30%



47

Position of the Cypriot eHealth profile within EU27+3

Cyprus remains below the European average in many areas. Of the 13 indicators under review, Cyprus was behind in 9 of these. The largest gaps were recorded in “Externally connected”, “Broadband >50Mbps”, “PACS usage”, and “ePrescribing”.

Changes in the Cypriot eHealth profile

Cyprus’s aggregate eHealth score has changed little between 2010 and 2012. However, the distribution of the individual values comprising the aggregate profile appears to have changed significantly. Of the 13 indicators considered, six have recorded positive growth, six have recorded negative growth, while one value remained unchanged. The most important growth areas were “Single and unified wireless” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”, while contracting areas included “Externally connected” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 12: Cypriot acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Values for one Public and eight to eleven Private acute hospitals have been recorded for Cyprus. The sole Public hospital and 7 out of 10 Private hospitals declared having “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, whereas half of the private hospitals have a “Single EPR shared by all departments” and 2 out of 9 “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”. While the sole Public hospital declared having access to all services except for “PACS usage”, this last service was available in almost half of Private hospitals.

48

Figure 13: Cypriot acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


As Cyprus is one of the smallest European states, it is not surprising that no values were returned for the size segments of ‘Between 251 and 750 beds’ and ‘More than 750 beds’. Therefore our analysis is confined to the smaller categories, namely ‘fewer than 101 beds’ and ‘between 101 and 250 beds’. Within this grouping, the larger hospitals tend to lead in all five categories. In addition, the disparity between Cyprus’s larger and smaller hospitals is striking, with “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” registering relevant differences.

49


The following section reports the results for Cyprus on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Cyprus´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Cyprus's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 7 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 9 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Cyprus eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Cyprus EU27+3

50

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 4 hospitals) for Cyprus was 0.34, while the 2012 value was 0.43, which shows an increase of 9% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Cyprus and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there are 2 hospitals with low levels of deployment and no effective use that lower Cyprus average values of the indicators.

Figure 5. Cyprus's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

51


Country Report Czech Republic

52

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Czech Republic. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Czech Republic are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

470 hospitals were identified in Czech Republic. Within this rough universe 269 (57%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 142 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (9% vs. 21%) and there were similar proportion hospitals of public ownership (68% and 64%). Out of the Czech universe, 40 acute hospitals (28%) completed the survey.

Table 16: Czech sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Czech Republic N= Fewer than 101 beds



More than 750 beds


Census 142

10 45 44 16 27

7% 32% 31% 11% 19%

2012 40 3 12 11 6 8

8% 30% 28% 15% 20%

2010 15 1 4 3 6 1

7% 27% 20% 40% 7%



53

Table 17: Czech sample breakdown by ownership type

Czech Republic N= Public Private Private not for


Census 142

89 37 5 11

63% 26% 4% 8%

2012 40 25 11 2 2

62% 28% 5% 5%

2010 15 10 3 1 1

67% 20% 7% 7%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Czech universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with a lower proportion of very large hospitals than in 2010.




Figure 14: Czech acute hospital eHealth profile


54

Table 18 – eHealth indicators Czech Republic

eHealth indicators - Czech Republic Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Czech Republic

vs.EU27+3

Czech Republic

evolution, 2012 vs.

201018

Infrastructure





Applications

PACS usage 40 95% 24% 22%





36 61% 6% 47%


38 84% 33% 27%


40 85% 30% -1%


40 95% 10% 8%


39 72% 24% 15%


Position of the Czech eHealth profile within EU27+3

The Czech Republic scores better than the average EU27+3 score in eHealth profile indicators, in particular in the areas of “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”. Areas in which the country has worse scores than the average were “Externally connected”, “Single and unified wireless” and “Tele-monitoring”..

Changes in the Czech eHealth profile

The Czech eHealth profile has expanded considerably since 2010. Areas which have seen the most gain include “ePrescribing” (+37%), “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” (+47%) and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” (+27%). Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.



55

Figure 15: Czech acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Some patterns can be seen with respect to ownership of acute hospitals and performance within eHealth. Although the Private not for profit hospitals category (only 2 hospitals) had the maximum score in three of the five categories (“Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”), they did not have “Broadband > 50Mbps” and were the lowest performer in “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”. When comparing the Public and Private hospital segments a 47 percentage point difference was observed for “Broadband > 50Mbps”.

Figure 16: Czech acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


56

They were not relevant differences between hospitals according to their size in their scores. Only in the category “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, large hospitals perform worse than hospitals in other categories.


The following section reports the results for Czech Republic on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Czech Republic´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Czech Republic's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 39 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 34 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Czech Republic eHealth Composite Indicators

57

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 14 hospitals) for Czech Republic was 0.36, while the 2012 value was 0.36, which shows no variation over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Czech Republic and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a significant group of hospitals (9) with almost no effective use at various levels of deployment while the rest of Czech hospitals have use scores higher than the EU27+3 average.

Figure 5: Czech Republic's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

58


Country Report Denmark

59

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Denmark. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Denmark are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

270 hospitals were identified in Denmark. Within this rough universe 126 (47%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 54 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (40% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (76% vs. 64%). Out of the Danish universe, 16 acute hospitals (30%) completed the survey.

Table 19: Danish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Denmark N= Fewer than 101 beds



More than 750 beds


Census 54

17 3 14 8 12

31% 6% 26% 15% 22%

2012 16 5 - 5 3 3

31% - 31% 19% 19%

2010 8 - 1 4 3 -

- 12% 50% 38% -



60

Table 20: Danish sample breakdown by ownership type

Denmark N= Public Private Private not for


Census 54

38 11 1 4

70% 20% 2% 7%

2012 16 11 4 1 -

69% 25% 6% -

2010 8 8 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Danish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has doubled, with higher proportion of small and private hospitals than in 2010.




61

Figure 17: Danish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 21: eHealth indicators Denmark

eHealth indicators - Denmark Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Denmark vs.EU27+3

Denmark evolution,

2012 vs. 201021

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 8 88% 52% -12%



Applications

PACS usage 16 94% 23% -6%

ePrescribing 16 94% 47% -6%


Tele-monitoring 16 19% 9% -19%


15 100% 49% 13%


15 80% 32% -20%


14 93% -9% -3%


16 100% 15% 0%


14 79% 30% 4%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing

Integrated system for eReferral

Tele-monitoring


providers

Exchange of laboratory results with external

providers

Exchange of radiology reports with external

providers



EU27+3 (n=1753) Denmark 2010 (n=8) Denmark 2012 (n=16)

62

Position of the Danish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Denmark noticeably scores better than the average EU27+3 in all areas but Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”. “The performances for “Integrated system for eReferral” and “Broadband > 50Mbps” were particularly outstanding, registering respectively 56% and 52% higher than EU27+3 scores.

. However, other areas fared better, with “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Integrated system for eReferral” all very close to the European average.

Changes in the Danish eHealth profile

The lower average scores recorded by Denmark’s eHealth indicators between 2010 and 2012 can be partly explained by the doubling of the sample and its increased representativeness. Indeed, all but two eHealth indicators (“Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”) dropped over the period under review. However, this evolution has to be seen in the context of the already high 2010 scores for all indicators. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution as mentioned. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 18: Danish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Danish eHealth indicators generally scored high across all ownership categories. While “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” were the most widely implemented indicators across all hospital types, “Broadband > 50Mbps” was not implemented at all by the sole Private hospital interviewed. All the other indicators registered high implementation rates in both Private and Public hospitals.

63

Figure 19: Danish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In terms of hospital size, there were almost no differences in the scores between categories.


The following section reports the results for Denmark on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Denmark´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals.

64

Denmark's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 13 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 10 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Denmark eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 8 hospitals) for Denmark was 0.64, while the 2012 value was 0.66, which shows an increase of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Denmark and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that for most of the hospitals there is a clear relationship between levels of deployment and of effective use. Only 1 hospital was below EU27+3 average for one of the composite indicators.

Figure 5: Denmark's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Denmark EU27+3

65


Country Report Estonia

66

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Estonia. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Estonia are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

136 hospitals were identified in Estonia. Within this rough universe 90 (66%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 25 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals of between 100 and 250 beds was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (43% vs. 31%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (88% vs. 64%). Out of the Estonian universe, 12 acute hospitals (48%) completed the survey.

Table 22: Estonian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Estonia N= Fewer than

101 beds Between 101 and 250 beds


More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 25

4 10 5 4 2

16% 40% 20% 16% 8%

2012 12 1 5 4 2 -

8% 42% 33% 17% -

2010 3 - 1 - 2 -

- 33% - 67% -



67

Table 23: Estonian sample breakdown by ownership type

Estonia N= Public Private Private not for


Census 25

21 1 2 1

84% 4% 8% 4%

2012 12 11 - 1 -

92% - 8% -

2010 3 3 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Estonian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has quadrupled, with a lower proportion of very large hospitals than in 2010.



Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI)with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours: The results for some of these indicators are also reported by groups of hospitals according to the ownership and size of the hospitals that completed the survey.

68

Figure 20: Estonian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 24: eHealth indicators Estonia

eHealth indicators - Estonia Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Estonia vs.EU27+3

Estonia evolution,

2012 vs. 201024

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 11 73% 37% 39%



Applications

PACS usage 12 100% 29% 0%





12 92% 36% -8%


12 92% 40% 42%


12 100% 45% 33%


12 92% 6% -8%


12 50% 2% -17%



69

Position of the Estonian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Estonia scores better than the EU27+3 average by at least 40% in five of the 13 eHealth indicators under review. These five areas are “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “ePrescribing”, “Integrated system for eReferral”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”. Only one Estonian indicator was below the European average: “Single and unified wireless”

Changes in the Estonian eHealth profile

Estonia has grown from an already strong performance in 2010 to an even stronger eHealth position in 2012. “Externally connected”, “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” have increased by between 33% and 42% over the period Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 21: Estonian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


As all of the hospitals but one belong to the public ownership category, this level of analysis and differences found is not very relevant.

70%

100%

100%

91%

91%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps

Single EPR shared by alldepartments

PACS usage

Exchange of CCI with ext.providers

Clear data access rules

Public (n=10-11) Private not for profit (n=1)

70

Figure 22: Estonian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Two of the five indicators (“Single EPR shared by all departments” and “PACS usage”) were fully implemented across all categories and for the other indicators there is no clear pattern according to the size of the hospital.


The following section reports the results for Estonia on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


71

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Estonia´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Estonia's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 12 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 7 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Estonia eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (however based on data from only 1 hospital ) for Estonia was 0.43, while the 2012 value was 0.63, which shows an increase of 20% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Estonia and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that all Estonian hospitals were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators

Figure 5: Estonia's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

72


Country Report Finland

73

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Finland. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Finland are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

620 hospitals were identified in Finland. Within this rough universe 486 (78%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 46 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals of between 100 and 250 beds was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (50% vs. 31%)and there were more hospitals of public ownership (89% vs. 64%). Out of the Finnish universe, 26 acute hospitals (57%) completed the survey.

Table 25: Finnish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Finland N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 46

10 18 6 2 10

22% 39% 13% 4% 22%

2012 26 4 12 4 1 5

15% 46% 15% 4% 19%

2010 15 3 7 5 - -

20% 47% 33% - -



74

Table 26: Finnish sample breakdown by ownership type

Finland N= Public Private Private not for


Census 46

39 5 - 2

85% 11% - 4%

2012 26 24 2 - -

92% 8% - -

2010 15 15 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Finnish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost doubled, with a slightly lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




75

Figure 23: Finnish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 27 – eHealth indicators Finland

eHealth indicators - Finland Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Finland vs.EU27+3

Finland evolution,

2012 vs. 201027

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 24 92% 56% -2%



Applications

PACS usage 26 96% 25% -4%



Tele-monitoring 26 19% 9% -4%


26 81% 25% -12%


26 77% 26% -23%


26 85% 29% -9%


26 100% 15% 0%


26 50% 2% 10%



76

Position of the Finnish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Finland’s eHealth profile in the European context can be currently considered to be excellent. It displays high value positive difference in every single one of the 13 values examined – essentially having higher scores than the EU average in all areas. The two highest performing areas, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Integrated system for eReferral” score 56% and 47% respectively.

Changes in the Finnish eHealth profile

Less positive for Finland is the decrease in eHealth values in the overall period between 2010 and 2012: it has in fact recorded negative growth in 11 of 13 areas. Mostly the negative growth has been less than -15%; however the sharp increase in the area of “ePrescribing” (74% growth) and to a lesser extent “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” (10% growth) have been enough to offset the losses in other categories. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 24: Finnish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


The two Finnish Private hospitals included score better than their Public counterparts in four of the five areas under examination; “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”.

77

Figure 25: Finnish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


A scale advantage might be relevant when examining Finnish acute hospitals in terms of size. Hospitals which have in excess of 750 beds have perfect scores in four of five categories evaluated however hospitals between 101 and 250 beds have them only in a single category.


The following section reports the results for Finland on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Finland´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Finland's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 26 hospitals, while the Availability

78

and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 25 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Finland eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 12 hospitals) for Finland was 0.60, while the 2012 value was 0.62, which shows an increase of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Finland and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows only one hospital with low level of effective use while the others have scores in deployment and effective use considerable higher than the EU27+3 average

Figure 5: Finland's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Finland EU27+3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Finland EU27+3

79


Country Report France

80

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for France. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for France are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

7649 hospitals were identified in France. Within this rough universe 2461 (32%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 997 qualified as acute care hospitals. The size and ownership characteristics of these hospitals was very similar to the ones of the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level. Out of the French universe, 319 acute hospitals (32%) completed the survey.

Table 28: French sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

France N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 997

140 225 322 145 165

14% 23% 32% 15% 17%

2012 319 63 90 108 33 25

20% 28% 34% 10% 8%

2010 150 46 59 41 4 -

31% 39% 27% 3% -



81

Table 29: French sample breakdown by ownership type

France N= Public Private Private not for


Census 997

718 143 72 64

72% 14% 7% 6%

2012 319 241 44 32 2

76% 14% 10% 1%

2010 150 76 18 53 3

51% 12% 35% 2%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the French universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has more than doubled, with a large proportion of very large hospitals and of public hospitals than in 2010.



Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI)with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours: The results for some of these indicators are also reported by groups of hospitals according to the ownership and size of the hospitals that completed the survey.

82

Figure 26: French acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 30: eHealth indicators France

eHealth indicators - France Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

France vs.EU27+3

France evolution,

2012 vs. 201030

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 299 14% -21% -29%



Applications

PACS usage 314 46% -25% 21%


Integrated system for eReferral 310 29% -8% 6%



311 60% 4% 20%


310 56% 5% 22%


315 57% 1% 34%


310 81% -4% -8%


313 43% -5% 5%



83

Position of the French eHealth profile within EU27+3

France is slightly behind the European average of eHealth implementation. Despite this, there are no large outliers, with only two areas “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “PACS usage” registering differences in excess of -20%.. In the area of “Single and unified wireless” France scores significantly better than the European average, 27%t of difference.

Changes in the French eHealth profile

While France has generally increased its eHealth profile since 2010, the increase has not been very significant. This growth has come predominantly from four areas, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”, which all posted growth values in excess of 20%. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 27: French acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Ownership type does not appear to very important to the development of eHealth in French acute hospitals. For example, while Public and Private not for profit hospital categories lead in three of five categories each (, the lead values tend not to vary widely. For example, no hospital type leads its counterparts by more than 19% in any eHealth area.

84

Figure 28: French acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In contrast to ownership type (see above), when scale considerations are taken into account, we can see that a very definite advantage is enjoyed by French acute hospitals which have more than 750 beds. This category of hospital leads in all five areas examined, and additionally leads by significant margins in three of these categories (14% in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, 24% in “PACS usage” and 32% in “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”). Even more significantly, the link between increased scale and greater eHealth capabilities is evident in all the categories, with smaller hospital segments recording progressively lower capabilities in each category under review.


The following section reports the results for France on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information

85

Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in France´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. France's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 312 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 269 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: France eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 139 hospitals) for France was 0.37, while the 2012 value was 0.41, which shows an increase of 4% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for France and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that, as expected given that French average scores are very similar to the EU27+3 average, there are a similar number of hospitals with better scores (36%) than the EU27+3 average than with worse ones (30%).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


France EU27+3

86

Figure 5: France's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals France EU27+3

87


Country Report Germany

88

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Germany. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Germany are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

3847 hospitals were identified in Germany. Within this rough universe 2534 (61%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 1295 qualified as acute care hospitals The size and ownership characteristics of these hospitals was very similar to the ones of the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level. Out of the German universe, 201 acute hospitals (16%) completed the survey.

Table 31: German sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Germany N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 1295

193 411 486 117 88

15% 32% 38% 9% 7%

2012 201 43 68 71 16 3

21% 34% 35% 8% 1%

2010 150 36 58 45 11 -

24% 39% 30% 7% -



89

Table 32: German sample breakdown by ownership type

Germany N= Public Private Private not for


Census 1295

387 357 373 178

30% 28% 29% 14%

2012 201 70 59 56 16

35% 29% 28% 8%

2010 150 90 33 26 1

60% 22% 17% 1%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the German universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has increased a 34%, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




90

Figure 29: German acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 33: eHealth indicators Germany

eHealth indicators - Germany Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Germany vs.EU27+3

Germany evolution,

2012 vs. 201033

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 183 31% -5% -10%



Applications

PACS usage 201 77% 6% 13%





192 54% -2% 22%


192 37% -14% 11%


196 61% 6% 23%


195 91% 6% -5%


194 55% 7% -6%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Germany 2010 (n=150) Germany 2012 (n=201)

91

Position of the German eHealth profile within EU27+3

Germany does not reach the European average in terms of eHealth adoption. The most notable lag occurs in the area of “ePrescribing” which is 37% behind the European average. In all other areas, the differences, both positive and negative, are less relevant. .

Changes in the German eHealth profile

Other than for “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” (which gained 22% and 23% respectively over the period under review), all gains have been marginal and lower than 15% in each category. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 30: German acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Public hospitals in Germany lead in two of the five areas investigated, namely “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “PACS usage”. Private acute hospitals, by contrast, underperform in all five areas, most notably in “Single EPR shared by all departments” where Private hospitals have only 47% penetration, a full 28 percentage points behind the lead value of 75%. Private not for profit acute hospitals lead in three areas, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”.

32%

64%

86%

42%

91%

28%

47%

63%

53%

84%

24%

75%

75%

61%

98%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Echange of CCI with ext. providers


Public (n=65-70) Private (n=53-59) Private not for profit (n=50-56)

92

Figure 31: German acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In Germany, scale advantages can be observed across all eHealth indicators under review. In all five areas, “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, acute hospitals over 750 beds in size led. For smaller size segments, the ranking is also commensurate with scale: the larger the hospital, the better it is equipped for eHealth (although in some cases the advantage was marginal).


The following section reports the results for Germany on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


15%

47%

49%

31%

80%

28%

62%

72%

57%

91%

29%

68%

86%

58%

94%

59%

71%

100%

64%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=26-35) Between 101 and 250 beds (n=63-69)

Between 251 and 750 beds (n=69-74) More than 750 beds (n=21-22)

93


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Germany´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Germany's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 188 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 168 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Germany eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 148 hospitals) for Germany was 0.36, while the 2012 value was 0.40, which shows an increase of 4% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Germany and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a significant large group of hospitals (27%) with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment. In contrast, an equal proportion of hospitals (27%) are above EU27+3 average in both indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Germany EU27+3

94

Figure 5: Germany's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Germany EU27+3

95


Country Report Greece

96

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Greece. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Greece are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

687 hospitals were identified in Greece. Within this rough universe 398 (58%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 120 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (36% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (80% vs. 64%). Out of the Greek universe, 68 acute hospitals (57%) completed the survey.

Table 34: Greek sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Greece N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 120

32 28 25 3 32

27% 23% 21% 3% 27%

2012 68 18 16 18 2 14

26% 24% 26% 3% 21%

2010 26 5 11 7 3 -

19% 42% 27% 12% -



97

Table 35: Greek sample breakdown by ownership type

Greece N= Public Private Private not for


Census 120

85 20 1 14

71% 17% 1% 12%

2012 68 59 8 1 -

87% 12% 1% -

2010 26 24 1 1 -

92% 4% 4% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Greek universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with a lower proportion of very large (more than 750 beds) and intermediate (Between 101 and 250 beds) hospitals than in 2010.




98

Figure 32: Greek acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 36 – eHealth indicators Greece

eHealth indicators - Greece Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Greece vs.EU27+3

Greece evolution,

2012 vs. 201036

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 61 11% -24% -8%



Applications

PACS usage 65 32% -39% 9%





64 19% -37% 10%


66 20% -32% 11%


63 17% -38% 9%


61 67% -18% -9%


64 34% -14% 14%



99

Position of the Greek eHealth profile within EU27+3

Greece is behind the European average in terms of eHealth development. The areas which contribute the most to this lag are “PACS usage” (-39%), “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” (-37%), “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, (-32%) and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” (-38%). Greece, however, exceeds the European average in “ePrescribing” (47%) and “Integrated system for eReferral” (33%).

Changes in the Greek eHealth profile

Despite lagging behind the European average, Greece has in fact made significant progress over its previous eHealth profile as evaluated in 2010. The country improvements are mainly due to the two areas in which it exceeds the average, “ePrescribing” and “Integrated system for eReferral. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 33: Greek acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Greece’s Public acute hospitals underperform in all areas examined and consistently rank equal to or behind the average values for all indicators. Private hospitals fare much better, exceeding the average value in all areas, sometimes by a wide margin, for example in “PACS usage”.

11%

50%

27%

14%

65%

14%

62%

75%

57%

75%

0

100%

0

0

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Echange of CCI with ext.providers


Public (n=52-56) Private (n=7-8) Private not for profit (n=1)

100

Figure 34: Greek acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Considering the scale of acute hospitals in Greece, the only hospital with more than 750 beds has good scores in the categories where data is available. However, the lack of representativeness prevents from any generalization. The results for the others categories do not show a clear relationship between size and performance in the indicators evaluated..


The following section reports the results for Greece on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the

21%

50%

12%

7%

62%

6%

53%

35%

33%

56%

4%

50%

32%

12%

76%

100%

0

100%

0

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=14-17)Between 101 and 250 beds (n=16-19)Between 251 and 750 beds (n=21-26)

101

Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Greece´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Greece's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 63 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 59 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Greece eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 24 hospitals) for Greece was 0.25, while the 2012 value was 0.27, which shows an increase of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Greece and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a group of hospitals with no effective use at various (low) levels of deployment. Only 5 hospitals were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Greece EU27+3

102

Figure 5: Greece's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Greece EU27+3

103


Country Report Hungary

104

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Hungary. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Hungary are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

492 hospitals were identified in Hungary. Within this rough universe 279 (57%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 102 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with more than 750 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (25% vs. 12%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (92% vs. 64%). Out of the Hungarian universe, 43 acute hospitals (42%) completed the survey.

Table 37: Hungarian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Hungary N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 102

15 20 34 23 10

15% 20% 33% 23% 10%

2012 43 6 7 17 8 5

14% 16% 40% 19% 12%

2010 10 - 2 7 1 -

- 20% 70% 10% -



105

Table 38: Hungarian sample breakdown by ownership type

Hungary N= Public Private Private not for


Census 102

90 7 1 4

88% 7% 1% 4%

2012 43 40 1 1 1

93% 2% 2% 2%

2010 10 9 - - 1

90% - - 10%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Hungarian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has quadrupled, with a lower proportion of large hospitals than in 2010.




106

Figure 35: Hungarian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 39 – eHealth indicators Hungary

eHealth indicators - Hungary Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Hungary vs.EU27+3

Hungary evolution,

2012 vs. 201039

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 43 23% -12% 3%



Applications

PACS usage 43 81% 11% 21%





43 40% -16% -16%


42 62% 11% -5%


43 40% -16% 0%


43 91% 5% 11%


42 45% -3% -35%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Hungary 2010 (n=10) Hungary 2012 (n=43)

107

Position of the Hungarian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Hungary lies close to the European average in terms of its eHealth indicators. The areas with scores significantly higher than the European average were “Single EPR shared by all departments” (29%), “ePrescribing” (51%) and “Integrated system for eReferral” (19%). Leads in all other areas are relatively marginal

Changes in the Hungarian eHealth profile

The whole Hungary’s eHealth profile has not risen significantly since 2010. However growth has been uneven over the period under review with, of the 13 areas, 7 registering negative growth. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 36: Hungarian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


There were not enough hospitals belonging to the private (for profit and not for profit) category to allow the analysis by ownership to draw any relevant message.

25%

85%

80%

42%

90%

0

100%

100%

0

100%

0

100%

100%

0

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Public (n=40) Private (n=1) Private not for profit (n=1)

108

Figure 37: Hungarian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Scale does not appear have a clear influence on the results of eHealth progress in Hungarian acute hospitals. In two areas, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, although larger hospitals tend to have higher scores, this lead is not dramatic and overall values are closely grouped


The following section reports the results for Hungary on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which

29%

86%

71%

14%

86%

0

80%

60%

20%

80%

21%

84%

79%

53%

95%

33%

89%

100%

56%

89%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=7)Between 101 and 250 beds (n=5)Between 251 and 750 beds (n=19)

109

all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Hungary´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Hungary's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 41 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 42 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Hungary eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 9 hospitals) for Hungary was 0.36, while the 2012 value was 0.33, which shows a negative growth of 3% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Hungary and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that, besides two hospitals with no effective use, hospitals with highest levels of deployment have as well higher levels of availability and of use.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Hungary EU27+3

110

Figure 5: Hungary's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Hungary EU27+3

111


Country Report Iceland

112

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Iceland. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Iceland are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

14 hospitals were identified in Iceland. Within this rough universe 11 (79%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 10 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (78% vs. 21%) and all the hospitals were of public ownership compared with a 64% among the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level. Out of the Icelandic universe, 9 acute hospitals (90%) completed the survey.

Table 40: Icelandic sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Iceland N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 10

7 1 1 - 1

70% 10% 10% - 10%

2012 9 7 1 1 - -

78% 11% 11% - -

2010 3 2 1 - - -

67% 33% - - -



113

Table 41: Icelandic sample breakdown by ownership type

Iceland N= Public Private Private not for


Census 10

9 - - 1

90% - - 10%

2012 9 9 - - -

100% - - -

2010 3 3 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Icelandic universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has tripled.




114

Figure 38: Icelandic acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 42 – eHealth indicators Iceland

eHealth indicators - Iceland Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Iceland vs.EU27+3

Iceland evolution,

2012 vs. 201042

Infrastructure





Applications

PACS usage 9 100% 29% 33%





9 89% 34% 56%


9 78% 27% 44%


9 67% 12% 0%


9 78% -8% -22%


7 86% 38% 52%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Iceland 2010 (n=3) Iceland 2012 (n=9)

115

Position of the Icelandic eHealth profile within EU27+3

Iceland noticeably scores better than the average EU27+3 as regards eHealth. The lead values are also well distributed, with an outperformance of around 12% to 27% for most indicators. The most successful Icelandic areas of eHealth appear to be “Integrated system for eReferral” (40%), “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” (34%) and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” (38%). Additionally, only three indicators out of 13 posted a negative value: “Single and unified wireless”, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” scoring -18%, -24% and -8% respectively.

Changes in the Icelandic eHealth profile

Iceland’s eHealth profile has grown significantly since 2010. The highest gains were posted in the areas of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”, which all grew in excess of 50%. However, “Single EPR shared by all departments” dropped by 67% in the same period. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Out of the 13 indicators included and analysed in the eHealth profile, 5 were selected to explore variability in the results according to size of the hospitals.

Figure 2: Icelandic acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


There were not enough hospitals belonging to the size categories of between 101 and 250 beds and between 251 and 750 beds to allow the analysis by size to draw any relevant message.

33%

43%

100%

86%

86%

100%

0%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

100%

100%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband >50Mbps

Single EPR sharedby all departments

PACS usage

Echange of CCI withext. providers

Clear data accessrules

Fewer than 101 beds (n=6-7)

Between 101 and 250 beds (n=1)


116


The following section reports the results for Iceland on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Iceland´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Iceland's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 8 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 7 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 3: Iceland eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Iceland EU27+3

117

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 3 hospitals) for Iceland was 0.45, while the 2012 value was 0.55, which shows an increase of 10% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Iceland and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a clear positive relationship among Icelandic hospitals between level of deployment and of availability and use. Only 1 hospital was below EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 4: Iceland's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Iceland EU27+3

118


Country Report Ireland

119

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Ireland. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Ireland are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

492 hospitals were identified in Ireland. Within this rough universe 358 (73%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 42 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 250 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (66% vs. 52%). Out of the Irish universe, 23 acute hospitals (55%) completed the survey.

Table 43: Irish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Ireland N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 42

6 20 13 - 3

14% 48% 31% - 7%

2012 23 5 11 7 - -

22% 48% 30% - -

2010 8 - 1 4 3 -

- 12% 50% 38% -



120

Table 44: Irish sample breakdown by ownership type

Ireland N= Public Private Private not for


Census 42

27 9 3 3

64% 21% 7% 7%

2012 23 16 6 1 -

70% 26% 4% -

2010 8 8 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Irish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with a significantly higher proportion of hospitals with less than 250 beds and non public hospitals than in 2010.




121

Figure 39: Irish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 45 – eHealth indicators Ireland

eHealth indicators - Ireland Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Ireland vs.EU27+3

Ireland evolution,

2012 vs. 201045

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 21 57% 22% -43%



Applications

PACS usage 23 83% 12% 8%


Integrated system for eReferral 23 30% -7% -7%



23 78% 23% -9%


23 70% 18% -18%


23 65% 10% -10%


21 90% 5% -10%


23 39% -9% -11%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Ireland 2010 (n=8) Ireland 2012 (n=23)

122

Position of the Irish eHealth profile within EU27+3

In 2012 Ireland was largely in line with the European average with respect to eHealth indicators. In 6 of them, Ireland scores higher than the average EU27+3 and worse in 7. Those with the highest negative differences are “eprescribing” (38%) and “Single EPR shared by all departments” (27%). The category “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” is where positive differences are higher (23%).

Changes in the Irish eHealth profile

Ireland has made negative progress since 2010 as regards its eHealth profile. The largest drops occurred in the areas of “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Tele-monitoring”, which registered drops of -43% and -25% respectively. Ireland has fallen in 11 of the 13 categories since 2010. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 40: Irish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Areas as “PACS usage” and “Single EPR shared by all departments” show important differences between Public and Private hospitals. However, it is not clear what type of hospitals performs better (as there is only one hospital belonging to the category not for profit, this category has not been considered)

53%

12%

88%

81%

93%

60%

67%

67%

67%

80%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% 50% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Exchange of clinical care informationwith external providers

Clear and structured rules on accessto clinical data


123

Figure 41: Irish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In terms of hospital size, Ireland returned no values for establishments with over 750 beds. The values reported tend to be roughly evenly grouped, although the medium-sized and larger hospital segments (between 101 and 250 beds, and from 251 beds to 750 beds) tend to lead in four of the five areas: “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”.


The following section reports the results for Ireland on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that,

0

33%

33%

0

100%

70%

45%

91%

91%

91%

57%

0

88%

88%

86%

0 0.5 1

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Exchange of clinical care informationwith external providers

Clear and structured rules on access toclinical data


124

for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Ireland´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Ireland's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 22 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 19 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Ireland eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 7 hospitals) for Ireland was 0.65, while the 2012 value was 0.47, which shows a negative growth of 18% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Ireland and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows the low level of effective use, independently of the level of deployment, among all but 2 hospitals. These 2 hospitals were the only ones above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Ireland EU27+3

125

Figure 5: Ireland's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Ireland EU27+3

126


Country Report Italy

127

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Italy. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Italy are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

2517 hospitals were identified in Italy. Within this rough universe 1063 (42%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 497 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of public hospitals among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (75% vs 64%). Out of the Italian universe, 196 acute hospitals (39%) completed the survey.

Table 46: Italian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Italy N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 497

87 96 143 55 116

18% 19% 29% 11% 23%

2012 196 39 37 67 21 32

20% 19% 34% 11% 16%

2010 90 29 26 21 10 4

32% 29% 23% 11% 4%



128

Table 47: Italian sample breakdown by ownership type

Italy N= Public Private Private not for


Census 497

342 106 11 38

69% 21% 2% 8%

2012 196 136 51 9 -

69% 26% 5% -

2010 90 47 29 14 -

52% 32% 16% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Italian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has more than doubled, with a lower proportion of small and private hospitals than in 2010.




129

Figure 42: Italian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 48 – eHealth indicators Italy

eHealth indicators - Italy Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference Italy

vs.EU27+3

Italy evolution, 2012

vs. 201048

Infrastructure





Applications

PACS usage 196 86% 15% 11%





192 56% 1% 15%


193 54% 3% 14%


190 58% 3% 19%


190 86% 1% -2%


192 47% -1% 1%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing


Exchange of clinical care information with external providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Italy 2010 (n=90) Italy 2012 (n=196)

130

Position of the Italian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Italy closely resembles the European average in eHealth. Of 13 areas considered, only one, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, showed a significant difference with the EU27+3 average (-27%). All other areas track the European average very closely, with only marginal discrepancies.

Changes in the Italian eHealth profile

Italy’s eHealth profile has progressed well from its 2010 position. In addition to this, the distribution has been relatively even, with only one of 13 areas posting a growth level in excess of 10%, being “ePrescribing” with a growth of 34%. All other growth areas were marginal, and of all areas examined, only two areas displayed negative growth, which was also marginal. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 43: Italian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Public acute hospitals in Italy appear to enjoy the best penetration of eHealth capabilities, leading in four of five areas. The distribution of eHealth capabilities also appears to be roughly similar across Private and Private not for profit acute hospitals, with Private hospitals slightly behind in terms of percentage penetration (taking last place in three areas of five: “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”).

48%

31%

90%

66%

87%

19%

26%

75%

31%

86%

11%

33%

89%

44%

78%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




131

Figure 44: Italian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


There appears to be a certain scale effect in Italian hospitals in relation to eHealth endowments, however it is not as clearly pronounced as in other European countries. For example, hospitals with fewer than 101 beds have worse results in all five areas considered, however at the larger end of the spectrum hospitals over 750 beds only lead in two of five categories (“Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”), as do hospitals with between 251 and 750 beds (“Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Single EPR shared by all departments”).


The following section reports the results for Italy on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4

21%

21%

54%

38%

79%

33%

33%

98%

52%

86%

50%

36%

97%

58%

87%

43%

27%

89%

70%

88%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=33-35)

Between 101 and 250 beds (n=39-42)


More than 750 beds (n=42-45)

132

categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Italy´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Italy's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 189 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 182 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Italy eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 84 hospitals) for Italy was 0.38, while the 2012 value was 0.45, which shows an increase of 7% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Italy and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a positive relationship among Italian hospitals between level of deployment and of availability and use. Nevertheless, there are also hospitals with low levels of deployment and relatively high levels of use and vice versa.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Italy EU27+3

133

Figure 5: Italy's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Italy EU27+3

134


Country Report Latvia

135

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Latvia. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Latvia are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

138 hospitals were identified in Latvia. Within this rough universe 95 (69%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 32 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of very large hospitals w among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (4% vs. 12%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (88% vs. 64%). Out of the Latvian universe, 19 acute hospitals (59%) completed the survey.

Table 49: Latvian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Latvia N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 32

8 10 8 1 5

25% 31% 25% 3% 16%

2012 19 5 9 3 1 1

26% 47% 16% 5% 5%

2010 3 - 2 1 - -

- 67% 33% - -



136

Table 50: Latvian sample breakdown by ownership type

Latvia N= Public Private Private not for


Census 32

23 3 - 6

72% 9% - 19%

2012 19 16 1 - 2

84% 5% - 11%

2010 3 3 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Latvian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has increased considerably, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




137

Figure 45: Latvian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 51 – eHealth indicators Latvia

eHealth indicators - Latvia Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Latvia vs.EU27+3

Latvia evolution, 2012

vs. 201051

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 18 33% -2% 0%



Applications

PACS usage 18 78% 7% 11%





13 62% 6% 28%


13 38% -13% 5%


14 100% 45% 67%


18 78% -8% -22%


16 69% 21% 35%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Latvia 2010 (n=3) Latvia 2012 (n=19)

138

Position of the Latvian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Latvia experienced an uneven development, with results for the indicators “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” been higher than the EU27+3 mean by 45% and 21% respectively, while “ePrescribing” was 29% below the European average.

Changes in the Latvian eHealth profile

Latvia has made progress in its development of eHealth in acute hospitals. “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” accounted for the largest areas of growth at 67% and 35% respectively. Of the 13 areas examined, only one experienced negative growth and two recorded no variation in relation to the 2010 results. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 46: Latvian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


As the category of Private not for profit returned no values for Latvia and there was only one hospital in the Private category, it is not possible to analyse indicators results by hospital’s ownership.

33%

77%

80%

55%

73%

0

100%

100%

0

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Public (n=11-15) Private (n=1)

139

Figure 47: Latvian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In Latvia, acute hospitals of between 101 and 250 beds in size appear to have the highest penetration of eHealth capabilities, with four of five categories being led (or jointly led) by this segment. In two of these areas (“Single EPR shared by all departments” and “PACS usage”) hospitals with between 101 and 250 beds posted 100% values. Similarly, the largest hospitals with more than 750 beds also recorded full implementation in two areas (“Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”), but large hospitals have underperformed elsewhere, often by a wide margin. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution given the low number of hospitals in each category.


The following section reports the results for Latvia on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator.

0

33%

75%

0

75%

50%

100%

100%

33%

83%

0

67%

67%

100%

67%

50%

100%

50%

100%

50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




140

Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Latvia´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Latvia's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 9 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 15 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Latvia eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 2 hospitals) for Latvia was 0.22, while the 2012 value was 0.32, which shows an increase of 10% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Latvia and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that only 1 hospital was above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators and another hospital had a high score in the use indicator despite its low score in the deployment indicator..

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Latvia EU27+3

141

Figure 5: Latvia's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Latvia EU27+3

142


Country Report Lithuania

143

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Lithuania. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Lithuania are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

219 hospitals were identified in Lithuania. Within this rough universe 119 (54%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 63 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (30% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (98% vs. 64%). Out of the Lithuanian universe, 32 acute hospitals (51%) completed the survey.

Table 52: Lithuanian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Lithuania N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 63

18 17 11 10 7

29% 27% 17% 16% 11%

2012 32 10 12 5 5 -

31% 38% 16% 16% -

2010 10 - 3 4 3 -

- 30% 40% 30% -



144

Table 53: Lithuanian sample breakdown by ownership type

Lithuania N= Public Private Private not for


Census 63

57 1 - 5

90% 2% - 8%

2012 32 32 - - -

100% - - -

2010 10 10 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Lithuanian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has tripled, with a lower proportion of very large hospitals than in 2010.




145

Figure 48: Lithuanian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 54 – eHealth indicators Lithuania

eHealth indicators - Lithuania Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Lithuania vs.EU27+3

Lithuania evolution,

2012 vs. 201054

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 31 45% 10% 15%


Single EPR shared by all departments 30 23% -34% 3%

Applications

PACS usage 32 69% -2% 9%





30 20% -35% 0%


30 7% -45% -13%


30 30% -25% 10%


30 63% -22% -27%


31 19% -29% -41%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Lithuania 2010 (n=10) Lithuania 2012 (n=32)

146

Position of the Lithuanian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Lithuania is behind the European average in terms of eHealth, with lower values than the EU27+3 average in 12 of the 13 examined categories.. The two areas with the biggest differences were “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”, with -35% and -45% respectively.

Changes in the Lithuanian eHealth profile

Lithuania has seen a marginal decrease in its overall eHealth profile since 2010. The main contractions were observed in “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”, which dropped by 27% and 41% respectively. In all other areas, the decline amounted to less than 15%, with some areas (“Tele-monitoring” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”) recording no variation over the two-year period. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Out of the 13 indicators included and analysed in the eHealth profile, 5 were selected to explore variability in the results according to size of the hospitals (No comparison by ownership type can be carried out for Lithuania since only public hospitals returned data for the survey).

Figure 2: Lithuanian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Lithuanian hospitals with more than 750 beds score better than all other segments in all categories under review.. By contrast, acute hospitals with fewer than 101 beds have the lowest scores in three of the five categories.

12%

12%

33%

0

75%

46%

15%

77%

23%

62%

50%

33%

75%

25%

50%

100%

60%

100%

50%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=8-9)Between 101 and 250 beds (n=13)Between 251 and 750 beds (n=3-4)

147


The following section reports the results for Lithuania on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Lithuania´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Lithuania's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 30 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 32 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 3: Lithuania eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Lithuania EU27+3

148

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 10 hospitals) for Lithuania was 0.23, while the 2012 value was 0.30, which shows an increase of 7% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Lithuania and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a large group of hospitals with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment. No hospital was above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 4: Lithuania's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Lithuania EU27+3

149


Country Report Luxembourg

150

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Luxembourg. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Luxembourg are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

7 hospitals were identified in Luxembourg. Within this rough universe 7 (100%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and all of them qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with between 250-750 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (71% vs. 36%). Out of the Luxembourgish universe, 3 acute hospitals (43%) completed the survey.

Table 55: Luxembourgish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Luxembourg N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 7

2 - 5 - -

29% - 71% - -

2012 3 - - 3 - -

- - 100% - -

2010 3 1 - 2 - -

33% - 67% - -



151

Table 56: Luxembourgish sample breakdown by ownership type

Luxembourg N= Public Private Private not for


Census 7

4 - 3 -

57% - 43% -

2012 3 1 - 2 -

33% - 67% -

2010 3 2 1 - -

67% 33% - -

Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has remained the same, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010 and with no small hospitals.



Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI) with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours:

152

Figure 49: Luxembourgish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 57 – eHealth indicators Luxembourg

eHealth indicators - Luxembourg Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Luxembourg

vs.EU27+3

Luxembourg evolution,

2012 vs. 201057

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 3 100% 64% 33%



Applications

PACS usage 3 100% 29% 0%





2 50% -5% -17%


3 67% 15% 0%


3 100% 45% 33%


3 67% -19% -33%


3 100% 52% 33%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Luxembourg 2010 (n=3) Luxembourg 2012 (n=3)

153

Position of the Luxembourgish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Luxembourg has an excellent eHealth profile compared to the European average. Values for “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Single and unified wireless” were particularly strong, with significant leads over the EU27+3 average.

Changes in the Luxembourgish eHealth profile

Luxembourg’s overall eHealth profile has not changed considerably since 2010. “Single EPR shared by all departments” accounted for the most dramatic change, with a drop of 67% in relation to the 2010 position, while “Broadband >50Mbps”, “Single and unified wireless”, “Integrated system for eReferral”, “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” all posted gains of 33%. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Low number of hospitals included in the sample prevents from analyzing differences in the results by hospital characteristics as size and ownership.


The following section reports the results for Luxembourg on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Luxembourg´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Luxembourg's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 3 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 3 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 2: Luxembourg eHealth Composite Indicators

154

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 3 hospitals) for Luxembourg was 0.45, while the 2012 value was 0.57, which shows an increase of 12% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Luxembourg and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that all hospitals (3) were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 3: Luxembourg's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Luxembourg EU27+3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Luxembourg EU27+3

155

European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking

deployment of e-Health services (2012–2013)

Country Report Malta

156

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Malta. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Malta are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

10 hospitals were identified in Malta. Within this rough universe 8 (80%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 3 qualified as acute care hospitals. Out of the Maltese universe, 2 acute hospitals (67%) completed the survey.

Table 58: Maltese sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Malta N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 3

1 1 - 1 -

33% 33% - 33% -

2012 2 - 1 - 1 -

- 50% - 50% -

2010 3 2 - - 1 -

67% - - 33% -

58 This criteria was based on whether respondents considered that the hospital was an acute or general hospital and in case they did not, whether they reported that the hospital had an emergency department, and at least one of the following: a) routine and/or life-saving surgery operating room; and/or b) an intensive care unit.


157

Table 59: Maltese sample breakdown by ownership type

Malta N= Public Private Private not for


Census 3

2 1 - -

67% 33% - -

2012 2 2 - - -

100% - - -

2010 3 2 1 - -

67% 33% - -

Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has decreased.



Infrastructure: Externally connected, Broadband > 50Mbps and Single and unified wireless: Applications: Single Electronic Patient Records (EPR) shared by all departments, Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) usage, ePrescribing, Integrated system for eReferral and Tele-monitoring Integration: Exchange of clinical care information (CCI) with external providers; Exchange of laboratory results with external providers; and Exchange of radiology reports with external providers. Security: Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data and Enterprise Archive Strategy (EAS) for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours:

158

Figure 50: Maltese acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 60 – eHealth indicators Malta

eHealth indicators - Malta Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Malta vs.EU27+3

Malta evolution, 2012

vs. 201060

Infrastructure

Externally connected 2 50% -26% 17%

Broadband > 50Mbps 1 0% -36% -67%


Single EPR shared by all departments 2 50% -7% 50%

Applications

PACS usage 2 100% 29% 33%





1 100% 45% 67%


1 100% 49% 67%


2 100% 45% 67%


na na na na


na na na na



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Malta 2010 (n=3) Malta 2012 (n=2)

159

Position of the Maltese eHealth profile within EU27+3

Malta trails the European average in eHealth, with significant discrepancies in four of the 13 areas examined. However, the low number of hospitals (2) included in the Maltese sample requires that these results should be taken with caution.

Changes in the Maltese eHealth profile

Since 2010, Malta has made progress on its eHealth profile. “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” are the areas where the increase has been bigger. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years and the sample sizes are very small.


The following section reports the results for Malta on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Malta´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Malta's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from only 1 hospital, as the Availability and Use indicator. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

160

Figure 4: Malta eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 3 hospitals) for Malta was 0.31, while the 2012 value was 0.72, which shows an increase of 41% over the two year period. As mentioned before, 2012 result is based on data form only one hospital. Therefore, the finding on increase of deployment should be taken with caution. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Malta EU27+3

161



Country Report The Netherlands

162

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for the Netherlands. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for the Netherlands are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

606 hospitals were identified in the Netherlands. Within this rough universe 381 (63%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 114 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (9% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (89% vs. 64%). Out of the Dutch universe, 26 acute hospitals (23%) completed the survey.

Table 61: Dutch sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Netherlands N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 114

7 10 48 15 34

6% 9% 42% 13% 30%

2012 26 5 3 14 3 1

19% 12% 54% 12% 4%

2010 29 - 3 19 4 3

- 10% 66% 14% 10%

61

This criteria was based on whether respondents considered that the hospital was an acute or general hospital and in case they did not, whether they reported that the hospital had an emergency department, and at least one of the following: a) routine and/or life-saving surgery operating room; and/or b) an intensive care unit.


163

Table 62: Dutch sample breakdown by ownership type

Netherlands N= Public Private Private not for


Census 114

85 4 6 19

75% 4% 5% 17%

2012 26 20 1 5 -

77% 4% 19% -

2010 29 27 1 - 1

93% 3% - 3%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Dutch universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has decreased, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




164

Figure 51: Dutch acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 63 – eHealth indicators The Netherlands

eHealth indicators - the

Netherlands Valid N

%

hospitals

2012 difference the

Netherlands

vs.EU27+3

the Netherlands

evolution, 2012 vs.

201063

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 26 81% 45% 10%



Applications

PACS usage 26 92% 21% -4%





26 88% 33% 8%


26 85% 33% 3%


25 76% 21% -9%


26 88% 3% -12%


25 72% 21% 8%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Netherlands 2010 (n=29) Netherlands 2012 (n=26)

165

Position of the Dutch eHealth profile within EU27+3

The Netherlands scores better than the European average eHealth profile by a wide margin, with “Broadband > 50Mbps” 45% in excess of the European average. This good performance is distributed evenly across all sectors, with only one indicator of the 13 under review scoring below the EU27+3 average (“Externally connected” at -8%)..

Changes in the Dutch eHealth profile

The Dutch eHealth profile has not changed significantly between 2010 and 2012. The single largest gain was realised in the area of “Tele-monitoring”, which increased by 68% over the period. By contrast, “Externally connected”, “PACS usage”, “Integrated system for eReferral”, “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” all posted negative growth; however, with the exception of “Externally connected” these reductions did not exceed 15%. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 52: Dutch acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


When considering capabilities based on the ownership type of the hospital in question, in the Netherlands we can observe that both Private and Private not for profit hospitals lead in all five categories: “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”. Public hospitals, by contrast, lag behind in all these categories, being the gap larger for the indicator “Single EPR shared by all departments”.

Areas as “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “PACS usage”) show important differences. between Public and Private hospitals. Looking across ownership types, Private hospitals appear to be generally better endowed with respect to eHealth facilities, with the exception of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, where Private hospitals lag behind Public hospitals

75%

70%

95%

90%

85%

100%

0

0

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Public (n=20) Private (n=1) Private not for profit (n=5)

166

Figure 53: Dutch acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In terms of hospital size, eHealth performance in the Netherlands remains evenly distributed, with very high penetration rates being posted across most segments for “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”. However, in most categories, no data was returned for hospitals with fewer than 101 beds.


The following section reports the results for the Netherlands on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


67%

0

0

0

0

50%

100%

100%

100%

100%

88%

100%

100%

100%

75%

100%

100%

100%

67%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=3) Between 101 and 250 beds (n=4)

167

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in the Netherlands´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. the Netherlands's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 25 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 20 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: the Netherlands eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 23 hospitals) for the Netherlands was 0.60, while the 2012 value was 0.57, which shows a negative growth of 3% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for the Netherlands and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is large variability between hospitals in their level of effective use, even at similar levels of deployment. Only 1 hospital was below EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Netherlands EU27+3

168

Figure 5: the Netherlands's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Netherlands EU27+3

169



Country Report Norway

170

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Norway. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Norway are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

100 hospitals were identified in Norway. Within this rough universe 75 (75%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 28 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (48% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (81% vs. 64%). Out of the Norwegian universe, 6 acute hospitals (21%) completed the survey.

Table 64: Norwegian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Norway N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 28

12 6 4 3 3

43% 21% 14% 11% 11%

2012 6 2 2 1 1 -

33% 33% 17% 17% -

2010 7 1 2 3 1 -

14% 29% 43% 14% -



171

Table 65: Norwegian sample breakdown by ownership type

Norway N= Public Private Private not for


Census 28

21 4 1 2

75% 14% 4% 7%

2012 6 3 3 - -

50% 50% - -

2010 7 6 - 1 -

86% - 14% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Norwegian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has reduced, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




172

Figure 54: Norwegian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 66 – eHealth indicators Norway

eHealth indicators - Norway Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Norway vs.EU27+3

Norway evolution,

2012 vs. 201066

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 5 80% 44% -20%



Applications

PACS usage 6 67% -4% -33%





6 50% -5% -36%


6 67% 15% -33%


6 67% 12% -19%


6 100% 15% 0%


6 83% 35% 40%



173

Position of the Norwegian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Norway noticeably scores better than the average EU27+3 in in the areas of “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Integrated system for eReferral”. The country is slightly behind in terms of “Single and unified wireless”, “PACS usage”, “ePrescribing” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”.

Changes in the Norwegian eHealth profile

Norway’s eHealth profile has declined in relation to 2010, with nine of 13 areas posting zero growth or negative growth in 2012. This reduction was fairly evenly distributed, with the largest decreases registered in “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers”. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 55: Norwegian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Although Private not for profit hospitals did not return any results for Norway, a clear comparison can still be made between Public and Private hospitals in terms of eHealth capabilities. Public hospitals in Norway recorded full implementation in all five areas under scrutiny and outperformed Private hospitals by a wide margin in the areas of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “PACS usage”.

174

Figure 56: Norwegian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


The largest hospitals in Norway by scale (Between 251 and 750 beds and More than 750 beds) appear to enjoy a distinct advantage over the smaller categories of acute hospitals. Larger hospitals led in five of five examined areas, and in four categories enjoyed a 50 percentage point lead over their smaller counterparts. These categories were “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”.


The following section reports the results for Norway on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


175


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Norway´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Norway's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 4 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 5 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Norway eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 7 hospitals) for Norway was 0.64, while the 2012 value was 0.53, which shows a negative growth of 11% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators (only 3 ), it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Norway and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a significant difference in the score of the indicators between one hospital and the other 2 with completed data.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Norway EU27+3

176

Figure 5: Norway's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Norway EU27+3

177



Country Report Poland

178

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Poland. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Poland are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

2411 hospitals were identified in Poland. Within this rough universe 1110 (46%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 459 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was lower compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (16% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (81% vs. 64%). Out of the Polish universe, 149 acute hospitals (32%) completed the survey.

Table 67: Polish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Poland N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 459

67 157 180 26 29

15% 34% 39% 6% 6%

2012 149 18 65 54 9 3

12% 44% 36% 6% 2%

2010 99 21 34 36 3 5

21% 34% 36% 3% 5%



179

Table 68: Polish sample breakdown by ownership type

Poland N= Public Private Private not for


Census 459

349 69 13 28

76% 15% 3% 6%

2012 149 118 22 7 2

79% 15% 5% 1%

2010 99 85 12 - 2

86% 12% - 2%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Polish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has increased a 50%, with a lower proportion of very small hospitals (less than 100 beds) than in 2010.




180

Figure 57: Polish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 69 – eHealth indicators Poland

eHealth indicators - Poland Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Poland vs.EU27+3

Poland evolution,

2012 vs. 201069

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 146 11% -25% -5%



Applications

PACS usage 148 68% -3% 18%





142 25% -30% 8%


146 23% -29% 14%


145 35% -20% 21%


146 76% -9% -14%


142 32% -16% -41%



181

Position of the Polish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Poland is universally behind the European average in eHealth, with all areas under review behind the corresponding average value. The country’s lag was evenly distributed across all 13 sectors and the difference did not exceed 30% in all sectors.

Changes in the Polish eHealth profile

Despite falling far behind the European average, Poland’s eHealth profile has improved somewhat. However, the changes have been broadly spread out across the 13 areas, with the two largest movers (“Externally connected” and “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”) posting a 30% and a -41% difference since then. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 58: Polish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


There are no clear discrepancies in terms of eHealth capabilities in Polish acute hospitals when ownership characteristics are taken into account. Private not for profit acute hospitals score highly in two specific areas (“Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”), but either scored worse or did not return values for the other areas under review. Public hospitals, by contrast, led in only two areas (“PACS usage” and “Broadband > 50Mbps”), although this advantage was only marginal.

12%

48%

70%

25%

75%

9%

64%

59%

19%

77%

0

43%

57%

43%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




182

Figure 59: Polish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


The scale of Polish acute hospitals does appear to be a significant factor in the development of eHealth capabilities, both in terms of leadership and extent of leadership. In all five categories examined, hospitals with between 251 and 750 beds and with more than 750 beds outperformed hospitals of lesser scale. In addition, this advantage was often significant, as can be seen in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “PACS usage”.


The following section reports the results for Poland on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


6%

28%

28%

22%

56%

2%

45%

66%

20%

70%

18%

65%

79%

32%

89%

50%

50%

88%

38%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




Between 251 and 750 beds (n=53-57) More than 750 beds (n=8)

183


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Poland´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Poland's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 129 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 146 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Poland eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 98 hospitals) for Poland was 0.23, while the 2012 value was 0.25, which shows an increase of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Poland and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a large group of hospitals with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment. Only 9 hospitals were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Poland EU27+3

184

Figure 5: Poland's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Poland EU27+3

185


Country Report Portugal

186

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Portugal. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Portugal are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

589 hospitals were identified in Portugal. Within this rough universe 224 (38%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 73 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (45% vs. 21%) and there were less hospitals of public ownership (55% vs. 64%). Out of the Portuguese universe, 41 acute hospitals (56%) completed the survey.

Table 70: Portuguese sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Portugal N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 73

21 16 7 3 26

29% 22% 10% 4% 36%

2012 41 13 11 6 3 8

32% 27% 15% 7% 20%

2010 20 7 5 7 1 -

35% 25% 35% 5% -

70 This criterion was based on whether respondents considered that the hospital was an acute or general hospital and in case they did

not, whether they reported that the hospital had an emergency department, and at least one of the following: a) routine and/or life-saving surgery operating room; and/or b) an intensive care unit.


187

Table 71: Portuguese sample breakdown by ownership type

Portugal N= Public Private Private not for


Census 73

34 20 8 11

47% 27% 11% 15%

2012 41 24 13 4 -

59% 32% 10% -

2010 20 13 2 5 -

65% 10% 25% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Portuguese universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has doubled, with similar characteristics than in 2010.




188

Figure 60: Portuguese acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 72 – eHealth indicators Portugal

eHealth indicators - Portugal Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Portugal vs.EU27+3

Portugal evolution,

2012 vs. 201072

Infrastructure


Broadband > 50Mbps 38 66% 30% 31%



Applications

PACS usage 41 83% 12% -12%





39 67% 11% 17%


40 48% -4% 28%


39 54% -1% 19%


38 84% -1% 0%


39 31% -17% -22%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Portugal 2010 (n=20) Portugal 2012 (n=41)

189

Position of the Portuguese eHealth profile within EU27+3

Portugal is close to the European average in its eHealth profile. However, the gains over and above the European average are not evenly distributed, with “ePrescribing” alone standing 48% above the EU27+3 average. Similarly, “Broadband > 50Mbps” was 30% above the average, with most other areas varying by less than 15%.

Changes in the Portuguese eHealth profile

The greatest gains since 2010 have been achieved in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Single and unified wireless” which delivered 31%, 28% and 25% growth respectively. However, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Integrated system for eReferral” posted negative growth, at -28% and -40% respectively. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 61: Portuguese acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Public acute hospitals in Portugal appear to be the best endowed in terms of eHealth capabilities, with Public hospitals leading by a wide margin in three areas: “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”. However, Private not for profit acute hospitals led notably in “Single EPR shared by all departments”, while Private hospitals led in “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”.

86%

50%

92%

87%

77%

50%

77%

77%

33%

100%

0

100%

50%

50%

67%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




190

Figure 62: Portuguese acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


The distribution of eHealth capabilities appears to be relatively even in terms of hospital size. Although the largest hospital segments (Between 251 and 750 beds, as well as More than 750 beds) have leadership positions in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, smaller hospitals lead in “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” as well as “Single EPR shared by all departments”. Significantly, the smallest segment (Fewer than 101 beds) underperformed in three of the five categories by a wide margin.


The following section reports the results for Portugal on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


40%

78%

50%

40%

89%

58%

80%

93%

57%

85%

90%

30%

100%

100%

80%

75%

50%

100%

75%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




Between 251 and 750 beds (n=10) More than 750 beds (n=4)

191


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Portugal´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Portugal's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 39 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 34 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Portugal eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 11 hospitals) for Portugal was 0.44, while the 2012 value was 0.40, which shows a negative growth of 4% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Portugal and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is large variability between Portuguese hospitals and that it seems that there is a clear relationship between levels of deployment and levels of use.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Portugal EU27+3

192

Figure 5: Portugal's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Portugal EU27+3

193


Country Report Romania

194

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Romania. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Romania are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

1042 hospitals were identified in Romania. Within this rough universe 612 (59%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 166 qualified as acute care hospitals. There were more hospitals of public ownership (96% vs. 64%) compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level. Out of the Romanian universe, 85 acute hospitals (51%) completed the survey.

Table 73: Romanian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Romania N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 166

31 53 49 29 4

19% 32% 30% 17% 2%

2012 85 15 27 28 15 -

18% 32% 33% 18% -

2010 38 8 13 10 6 1

21% 34% 26% 16% 3%



195

Table 74: Romanian sample breakdown by ownership type

Romania N= Public Private Private not for


Census 166

157 7 - 2

95% 4% - 1%

2012 85 82 3 - -

96% 4% - -

2010 38 37 - - 1

97% - - 3%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Romanian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has more than doubled, with similar hospital’s characteristics than in 2010.




196

Figure 63: Romanian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 75 – eHealth indicators Romania

eHealth indicators - Romania Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Romania vs.EU27+3

Romania evolution,

2012 vs. 201075

Infrastructure





Applications

PACS usage 83 23% -48% -14%





83 28% -28% 3%


82 26% -26% 6%


82 18% -37% 2%


80 78% -8% 6%


81 30% -19% -19%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Romania 2010 (n=38) Romania 2012 (n=85)

197

Position of the Romanian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Romania scores worse than the average EU27+3 in eHealth. Five areas in particular are responsible for the majority of this lag: “Single and unified wireless”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”. However, the country performs well in “ePrescribing”.

Changes in the Romanian eHealth profile

Despite its poor profile by contrast to the European average, Romania’s eHealth profile is improving. However, this growth has been uneven. The largest growth was recorded in the area of “ePrescribing” while all other areas have registered less significant changes, both positive and negative. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 64: Romanian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


When looking at the ownership type of Romanian acute hospitals, we can see the private acute hospital sector is far better performing in the areas of “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “PACS usage”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”. However, only 3 hospitals were of private ownership.

34%

61%

21%

26%

77%

67%

67%

67%

67%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Public (n=71-80) Private (n=3)

198

Figure 65: Romanian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In terms of hospital size, the very largest segment (More than 750 beds) registered much better performance than the smaller hospitals, with leading values in four of the five categories under review. Unusually, however, the worst performing category is not the smallest segment (Fewer than 101 beds) but the next largest segment of Between 101 and 250 beds.


The following section reports the results for Romania on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


30%

64%

18%

27%

80%

24%

50%

12%

20%

67%

46%

54%

24%

21%

82%

35%

84%

37%

50%

83%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Exchange of CCI with ext. providers




199

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Romania´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Romania's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 82 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 78 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Romania eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 11 hospitals) for Romania was 0.27, while the 2012 value was 0.34, which shows an increase of 7% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Romania and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a large group of hospitals with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment. It also shows that almost 15% of the hospitals were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators while 65% of them were below average for both indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Romania EU27+3

200

Figure 5: Romania's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Romania EU27+3

201


Country Report Slovakia

202

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Slovakia. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Slovakia are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

391 hospitals were identified in Slovakia. Within this rough universe 187 (48%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 72 qualified as acute care hospitals. The size and type of ownership of these hospitals were similar than those of the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level. Out of the Slovakian universe, 33 acute hospitals (46%) completed the survey.

Table 76: Slovakian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Slovakia N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 72

11 19 30 5 7

15% 26% 42% 7% 10%

2012 33 6 10 14 3 -

18% 30% 42% 9% -

2010 12 4 4 1 2 1

33% 33% 8% 17% 8%



203

Table 77: Slovakian sample breakdown by ownership type

Slovakia N= Public Private Private not for


Census 72

43 14 9 6

60% 19% 13% 8%

2012 33 22 8 3 -

67% 24% 9% -

2010 12 3 2 6 1

25% 17% 50% 8%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Slovakian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost tripled, with a higher proportion of public and big (more than 250 beds) hospitals than in 2010.




204

Figure 66: Slovakian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 78 – eHealth indicators Slovakia

eHealth indicators - Slovakia Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Slovakia vs.EU27+3

Slovakia evolution,

2012 vs. 201078

Infrastructure





Applications

PACS usage 33 79% 2% 7%





32 22% -8% -1%


32 53% 0% 3%


33 52% -1% 0%


33 85% 0% -4%


32 59% 3% 5%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Slovakia 2010 (n=12) Slovakia 2012 (n=33)

205

Position of the Slovakian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Slovakia trails behind the European average in eHealth. Four specific areas account for most of this lag: “Externally connected”, “Single and unified wireless”, “ePrescribing” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”. However, Slovakia is not universally behind the European average in all areas, with five of the 13 areas very close to or exceeding the European average.

Changes in the Slovakian eHealth profile

Although it is still behind the European average, Slovakia has improved on its 2010 eHealth profile. The major areas of increase were “Externally connected” and “PACS usage”, which had gains of 133% and 7% respectively. “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours” also improved. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 67: Slovakian acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Type of ownership does not appear to affect eHealth capabilities in any definite way in Slovakia, with both Private not for profit and Public hospitals leading in various different areas. While Private hospitals score better than public ones in four of five areas, the disparity in performance levels in three of these areas is not very high.

41%

86%

91%

23%

82%

38%

62%

50%

12%

88%

0

100%

67%

50%

100%

0% 50% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps

Single EPR shared byall departments

PACS usage

Exchange of CCI withext. providers

Clear data accessrules

Public (n=22) Private (n=8) Private not for profit (n=2-3)

206

Figure 68: Slovakian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Scale does not appear to be a definite factor either in deciding the eHealth development of acute hospitals in Slovakia. While the largest hospitals have a clear advantage in two areas, “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, acute hospitals in the segment of Between 101 and 250 beds perform at 100% levels in two areas; “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “PACS usage”. Hospitals of all sizes perform well in the final category, “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, and in this area, the maximum variation between results is not very high between the lowest and highest performers. By contrast, greater disparity in performance can be seen in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”.


The following section reports the results for Slovakia on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the

29%

57%

43%

29%

86%

33%

100%

100%

20%

83%

36%

86%

86%

14%

93%

75%

75%

100%

50%

75%

0% 50% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage

Exchange of CCI withext. providers


Fewer than 101 beds (n=7)Between 101 and 250 beds (n=5-6)Between 251 and 750 beds (n=14)

207

level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Slovakia´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Slovakia's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 33 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 32 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Slovakia eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 9 hospitals) for Slovakia was 0.22, while the 2012 value was 0.31, which shows an increase of 9% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Slovakia and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a group of 7 hospitals with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment. 5 hospitals were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Slovakia EU27+3

208

Figure 5: Slovakia's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Slovakia EU27+3

209


Country Report Slovenia

210

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Slovenia. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Slovenia are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

186 hospitals were identified in Slovenia. Within this rough universe 104 (56%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 14 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals of public ownership among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (92% vs. 64%). Out of the Slovenian universe, 6 acute hospitals (53%) completed the survey.

Table 79: Slovenian sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Slovenia N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 14

2 5 2 3 2

14% 36% 14% 21% 14%

2012 6 - 3 2 1 -

- 50% 33% 17% -

2010 3 1 1 1 - -

33% 33% 33% - -



211

Table 80: Slovenian sample breakdown by ownership type

Slovenia N= Public Private Private not for


Census 14

12 1 - 1

86% 7% - 7%

2012 6 6 - - -

100% - - -

2010 3 3 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Slovenian universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has doubled, with a lower proportion of very large hospitals than in 2010.




212

Figure 69: Slovenian acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 81 – eHealth indicators Slovenia

eHealth indicators - Slovenia Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Slovenia vs.EU27+3

Slovenia evolution,

2012 vs. 201081

Infrastructure Externally connected 6 83% 7% 17%




Applications PACS usage 6 50% -21% 17%





5 0% -55% -33%


6 50% -1% 17%


6 17% -38% -17%


62 92% 7% -1%


60 45% -3% -19%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Slovenia 2010 (n=3) Slovenia 2012 (n=6)

213

Position of the Slovenian eHealth profile within EU27+3

Slovenia scores worse than the average EU27+3 in in many areas; with the biggest disparities evident in “ePrescribing”, “Integrated system for eReferral”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of radiology reports with external providers”.

Changes in the Slovenian eHealth profile

Slovenia’s eHealth profile has changed marginally since 2010. Six areas have improved slightly, while four areas have dropped in value, being “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” the categories where the decrease in scores is higher. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.

Out of the 13 indicators included and analysed in the eHealth profile, 5 were selected to explore variability in the results according to size and ownership of the hospitals. However, as only public hospitals recorded values in relation to ownership type, no contrast is possible between other ownership types in Slovenia.

Figure 2: Slovenian acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


In relation to the size of hospitals , the low number of hospitals pertaining to each size category do not allow us to extract clear conclusions.


The following section reports the results for Slovenia on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level

33%

33%

0

0

100%

50%

50%

100%

0

50%

100%

0

100%

0

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage





214

of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Slovenia´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Slovenia's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 6 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided as well by 6 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 3: Slovenia eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 3 hospitals) for Slovenia was 0.18, while the 2012 value was 0.28, which shows an increase of 10% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Slovenia and with the average value of

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Slovenia EU27+3

215

the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there are 3 hospitals (50% of the sample) with almost no Effective use, the three of them with similar levels of deployment. No hospital was above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

Figure 4: Slovenia's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Slovenia EU27+3

216


Country Report Spain

217

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Spain. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Spain are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

1311 hospitals were identified in Spain. Within this rough universe 845 (64%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 478 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (35% vs. 21%) and there were less hospitals of public ownership (52% vs. 64%). Out of the Spanish universe, 124 acute hospitals (26%) completed the survey.

Table 82: Spanish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Spain N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 478

121 127 70 32 128

25% 27% 15% 7% 27%

2012 124 30 36 19 6 33

24% 29% 15% 5% 27%

2010 90 19 27 26 16 2

21% 30% 29% 18% 2%



218

Table 83: Spanish sample breakdown by ownership type

Spain N= Public Private Private not for


Census 478

225 157 50 46

47% 33% 10% 10%

2012 124 67 44 13 -

54% 35% 10% -

2010 90 62 16 11 1

69% 18% 12% 1%

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Spanish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has increased almost a 50%, with a lower proportion of public hospitals than in 2010.




219

Figure 70: Spanish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 84: eHealth indicators Spain

eHealth indicators - Spain Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Spain vs.EU27+3

Spain evolution, 2012

vs. 201084

Infrastructure Externally connected 123 89% 12% -5%

Broadband > 50Mbps 118 54% 19% 0%



Applications PACS usage 123 93% 23% 10%





118 71% 16% -1%


117 58% 7% -8%


121 64% 9% 0%


123 94% 9% -1%


122 66% 17% 5%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Spain 2010 (n=90) Spain 2012 (n=124)

220

Position of the Spanish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Spain is comfortably ahead of the European average in eHealth. For example, “PACS usage” and “ePrescribing” recorded scores of 20% or more above the European average (“PACS usage” is 23% above and “ePrescribing” is 21% above)

Changes in the Spanish eHealth profile

Despite being ahead of the EU average, Spain’s eHealth profile has contracted slightly since 2010. Seven areas registered declines from the 2010 values , the highest being “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Integrated system for eReferral” at -27% and -24%.. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 71: Spanish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Type of ownership does not appear to influence the development of eHealth capabilities across Spanish acute hospitals. For example, in “PACS usage” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” values are quite closely grouped, with a maximum variation of 7% between the lowest and highest performer. More variation can be seen in “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single EPR shared by all departments” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, and in these categories the lead position is twice held by Public hospitals, and once by Private hospitals

66%

38%

96%

77%

94%

37%

65%

91%

63%

93%

54%

54%

92%

67%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




221

Figure 72: Spanish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Scale appears to be slightly influential in Spanish acute hospitals, but not universally so. A certain advantage appears to be conferred upon larger hospital segments in three categories, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”, “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” and “PACS usage”, with acute hospitals of More than 750 beds leading in these areas. However, this segment performs much less well in “Broadband > 50Mbps” and “Single EPR shared by all departments”, where performance is reversed and where significant gaps were noted between the highest and lowest performers.


The following section reports the results for Spain on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.

The indicator for eHealth Deployment was based on 45 variables from the survey that provided information on characteristics related to the deployment of eHealth in each hospital. These variables were grouped in 4 dimensions (Infrastructure, Applications, Health Information Exchange, and Security and Privacy) and each dimension was given the same weight in the final indicator. Further, the eHealth Availability and Use indicator was based on information from the survey on the level of availability and use in each hospital of 39 different eHealth functionalities pertaining to 4 categories (View/Input Information on EHR; Clinical Decision Support on EHR; Health Information Exchange; and Telehealth). For both indicators, the range of possible values is 0-1. This implies that, for instance, a hospital with positive answers in all 45 variables which were the basis for the

44%

63%

91%

67%

91%

59%

52%

95%

67%

93%

73%

41%

92%

83%

96%

45%

42%

100%

92%

100%

0% 50% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage





222

Deployment indicator would score a value of 1 in this indicator. Correspondingly, a hospital in which all 39 of the eHealth functionalities were unavailable (or available but not being used) would obtain a score of zero in the Availability and Use indicator.

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Spain´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Spain's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 119 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 112 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Spain eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 87 hospitals) for Spain was 0.53, while the 2012 value was 0.51, which shows a decrease of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Spain and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is a large group of hospitals (72%) were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators. Nevertheless, there is as well a group of 10 hospitals with almost no Effective use at various levels of deployment.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Spain EU27+3

223

Figure 5: Spain's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Spain EU27+3

224


Country Report Sweden

225

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for Sweden. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for Sweden are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

246 hospitals were identified in Sweden. Within this rough universe 131 (53%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 78 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (32% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (92% vs. 64%). Out of the Swedish universe, 26 acute hospitals (33%) completed the survey.

Table 85: Swedish sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

Sweden N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 78

18 13 17 9 21

23% 17% 22% 12% 27%

2012 26 6 5 9 3 3

23% 19% 35% 12% 12%

2010 8 1 1 3 2 1

12% 12% 38% 25% 12%



226

Table 86: Swedish sample breakdown by ownership type

Sweden N= Public Private Private not for


Census 78

59 2 3 14

76% 3% 4% 18%

2012 26 20 - 2 4

77% - 8% 15%

2010 8 8 - - -

100% - - -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a similar structure to the one of the Swedish universe of acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has more than tripled, with a lower proportion of very large and public hospitals than in 2010.




227

Figure 73: Swedish acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 87 – eHealth indicators Sweden

eHealth indicators - Sweden Valid N %

hospitals

2012 difference

Sweden vs.EU27+3

Sweden evolution,

2012 vs. 201087

Infrastructure Externally connected 26 85% 8% 10%

Broadband > 50Mbps 22 100% 64% 14%



Applications PACS usage 25 88% 17% -12%





26 85% 29% 10%


25 96% 45% 21%


25 84% 29% 9%


26 96% 11% -4%


25 72% 24% -28%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) Sweden 2010 (n=8) Sweden 2012 (n=26)

228

Position of the Swedish eHealth profile within EU27+3

Sweden is one of the strongest eHealth performers in the sample. In fact, in all 13 indicators examined, Sweden scored worse than the EU27+3 average in only one area (“Tele-monitoring”) and in this area is only marginally behind (-3% points). The areas within which Sweden is the most evolved by contrast to other countries within this study are “Broadband > 50Mbps” (64% ahead) and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” (64% ahead).

Changes in the Swedish eHealth profile

Despite Sweden’s strong position in eHealth, there has been some contraction of eHealth capabilities when contrasted with 2010 values. .The most notable decrease was recorded for in “EAS for disaster recovery in less than 24 hours”. In the 13 areas under review, five indicators posted modest growth, being “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” the area where the growth was bigger. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 74: Swedish acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


Only data for Public and Private not for profit hospitals were returned by our survey, and within this data we see that the latter segment of the market appears to have slightly better scores. Nevertheless, the sample size of this category, just 2 hospitals, is too small to extract definitive conclusions

100%

72%

95%

85%

95%

100%

100%

50%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Public (n=17-20) Private not for profit (n=2)

229

Figure 75: Swedish acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Scale does appear to affect the eHealth capabilities of Swedish acute hospitals, with the very largest hospital segment (More than 750 beds) scoring 100% in all five indicator areas. The lowest performing hospitals, by contrast, are the two smallest segments, being Fewer than 101 beds and Between 101 and 250 beds..


The following section reports the results for Sweden on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


100%

71%

71%

71%

86%

100%

80%

80%

80%

100%

100%

75%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage



Fewer than 101 beds (n=6-7) Between 101 and 250 beds (n=5)


230


The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in Sweden´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. Sweden's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 25 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 24 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: Sweden eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 7 hospitals) for Sweden was 0.64, while the 2012 value was 0.62, which shows a decrease of 2% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for Sweden and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that all Swedish hospitals but 2 were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators. However, these two hospitals have scores lower than the European average in both indicators.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


Sweden EU27+3

231

Figure 5: Sweden's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals Sweden EU27+3

232


Country Report United Kingdom

233

1. Background



This document reports the results of this project for United Kingdom. It starts with a brief description of the characteristics of the sample and presents a comparison with the 2010 sample. It then provides descriptive statistics and indicators. Finally, the results of the composite indicators for United Kingdom are displayed. When possible, these results are compared with the European level results, and the evolution over the period 2010-2012 is analyzed.

2. Sample analysis

889 hospitals and National Health Service (NHS) trusts were identified in United Kingdom. Within this rough universe 510 (57%) completed the screener part of the questionnaire and 102 qualified as acute care hospitals. The proportion of hospitals with less than 100 beds among these hospitals was higher compared to the universe of acute Hospitals at EU27+3 level (34% vs. 21%) and there were more hospitals of public ownership (74% vs. 64%). Out of the United Kingdom universe, 33 acute hospitals and NHS trusts (32%) completed the survey. In order to guarantee the representativeness of the healthcare system in the United Kingdom, the 2012 results of the acute hospitals within NHS trusts have been duplicated based on the number of hospitals represented by the trust. After this duplication process, the United Kingdom counts 69 hospitals in its sample.

Table 88: United Kingdom sample breakdown by size of acute care hospitals

United Kingdom N= Fewer than



More than 750 beds

Don’t know/ No

answer

Census 102

59 9 15 4 15

58% 9% 15% 4% 15%

2012 69 36 7 16 5 5

64% 9% 9% 3% 15%

2010 38 9 4 18 7 -

24% 11% 47% 18% -



234

Table 2: United Kingdom breakdown by ownership type

United Kingdom N= Public Private Private not for


Census 102

55 43 2 2

54% 42% 2% 2%

2012 69 55 13 1 -

80% 19% 1% -

2010 38 28 5 5 -

74% 13% 13% -

The final sample of hospitals included in the survey has a bigger proportion of public hospitals than the universe of United Kingdom acute hospitals. Comparing this 2012 final sample with the one of the 2010 survey, the number of hospitals has almost doubled, with a higher proportion of small hospitals (less than 100 beds) than in 2010.




235

Figure 76: United Kingdom acute hospital eHealth profile


Table 89 – eHealth indicators United Kingdom

eHealth indicators - United

Kingdom Valid N

%

hospitals

2012 difference

United Kingdom

vs.EU27+3

United Kingdom

evolution, 2012 vs.

201090

Infrastructure Externally connected 68 79% 3% -15%

Broadband > 50Mbps 37 81% 46% 13%



Applications PACS usage 69 97% 26% 2%





67 76% 10% -23%


67 73% 11% -30%


68 65% 4% -2%


66 85% 0% -13%


58 57% 9% -16%



0

1

2

3

4


Broadband > 50Mbps



PACS usage

ePrescribing



providers





EU27+3 (n=1753) United Kingdom 2010 (n=38) United Kingdom 2012 (n=69)

236

Position of the United Kingdom eHealth profile within EU27+3

The United Kingdom is above the average in terms of the adoption of eHealth capabilities. The United Kingdom’s largest scores above the average value come from “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Single and unified wireless”, “PACS usage” and “Integrated system for eReferral”. Only the “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “ePrescribing” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” indicators scored below average.

Changes in the United Kingdom eHealth profile

Despite the United Kingdom’s healthy position in relation to the average EU27+3 results, the country’s performance has dropped in several areas, with only four areas where the 2012 results are higher than the 2010 ones.. All other nine indicators registered negative growth, with “Single EPR shared by all departments”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Exchange of laboratory results with external providers” being the areas where this decrease has been more significant. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution. Although samples are representative of the universe in each survey, they might not be fully comparable between the two years.


Figure 77: United Kingdom acute hospitals eHealth profile by ownership


No definite trends can be observed based on ownership type among United Kingdom hospitals. Public hospitals appear to perform better, scoring highest or joint highest in three of five categories (“Broadband > 50Mbps”, “PACS usage” and “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers”) and Private hospitals perform better in “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data” and “Single EPR shared by all departments”. Private not for profit acute hospitals only returned data for one of five categories under investigation

93%

35%

100%

81%

83%

29%

62%

85%

58%

100%

0%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage




237

Figure 78: United Kingdom acute hospitals eHealth profile by size


Scale appears to be more influential in the development of eHealth capabilities across UK hospitals, with the largest hospitals (Between 251 and 750 beds and More than 750 beds) outperforming other segments in four of five indicator areas. In addition, for three of these indicator, “Broadband > 50Mbps”, “Exchange of clinical care information with external providers” and “Clear and structured rules on access to clinical data”, the margin between the highest and lowest performers is considerable.


The following section reports the results for United Kingdom on the composite indicators for eHealth Deployment and eHealth Availability and Use. Deployment, in this context, is understood as the existence of infrastructure (i.e. broadband connection), applications (i.e. a computerised system for eprescribing), systems (i.e.to exchange clinical information with other care providers electronically) and regulations (i.e. on security and privacy of medical data). Availability is understood as the level of implementation of eHealth functionalities across hospitals' units while use is understood as the extent to which health professionals use the eHealth functionalities that have been implemented. The composite indicators are calculated at Hospital level before obtaining average country values. These indicators have been developed by IPTS through multivariate statistical analysis and they make it possible to benchmark between countries and compare 2012 results for eHealth deployment with those from a similar survey carried out in 2010.


69%

41%

95%

68%

82%

50%

33%

100%

67%

67%

100%

36%

100%

82%

82%

90%

27%

100%

100%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Broadband > 50Mbps


PACS usage





238

The following graph displays the average values of these indicators in United Kingdom´s hospitals, comparing them with the average values obtained for the whole sample of EU27+3 hospitals. United Kingdom's eHealth Deployment indicator is based on data from 67 hospitals, while the Availability and Use indicator was built from the information provided by 51 hospitals. The values for the EU27+3 indicators are obtained from samples of 1,643 hospitals (Deployment) and 1,533 hospitals (Use and Availability). These differences are the consequence of different numbers of missing values in each of the survey blocks.

Figure 4: United Kingdom eHealth Composite Indicators

For the eHealth Deployment indicator, it is also possible to analyse the evolution over the period 2010-2012. In 2010, this indicator (based on data from 37 hospitals) for United Kingdom was 0.62, while the 2012 value was 0.58, which shows a negative growth of 4% over the two year period. In comparison, the average increase in eHealth Deployment for the EU27+3 hospitals (2010 results based on data from 844 hospitals) was 3%.

Finally, for hospitals with valid data for both indicators, it is possible to map these individual values on a graph and compare them with the average value for United Kingdom and with the average value of the EU27+3 hospitals in order to show the variability of the hospitals' results. This exercise is displayed in the following graph. It shows that there is significant variability among UK hospitals and NHS trusts91. While 9 hsopitals (36% of the sample) were above EU27+3 average for both composite indicators, there were as well 6 hospitals (25%) with results below EU27+3 average for both composite indicators.

91 In this graph, results for NHS trusts have been not duplicated based on the number of hospitals represented by the trust.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1


UK EU27+3

239

Figure 5: United Kingdom's hospitals values of eHealth Composite Indicators

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Ava

ilab

ility

& U

se

Deployment

Hospitals UK EU27+3

240

European Commission

EUR 26357 – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Title: European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking deployment of e-Health services (2012–2013) – Country Reports

Author: Ramon Sabes-Figuera

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2013 – 239 pp. – 21.0 x 29.7 cm

EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1831-9424 (online)

ISBN 978-92-79-34778-8 (pdf)

I

doi:10.2791/55973

Abstract

A widespread uptake of eHealth technologies is likely to benefit European Healthcare systems both in terms of quality of care and financial sustainability and European society at large. This is why eHealth has been on the European Commission policy agenda for more than a decade. The objectives of the latest eHealth action plan developed in 2012 are in line with those of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Digital Agenda for Europe.

This report, based on the analysis of the data from the "European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking deployment of e-Health services (2012–2013)" project, presents policy relevant results and findings for each of the 28 EU Member States as well as Iceland and Norway.

The results highlighted here are based on the analysis of the survey descriptive results as well as two composite indicators on eHealth deployment and eHealth availability and use that were developed based on the survey's data

z

As the Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre’s mission is to provide EU policies with independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support throughout the whole policy cycle. Working in close cooperation with policy Directorates-General, the JRC addresses key societal challenges while stimulating innovation through developing new standards, methods and tools, and sharing and transferring its know-how to the Member States and international community. Key policy areas include: environment and climate change; energy and transport; agriculture and food security; health and consumer protection; information society and digital agenda; safety and security including nuclear; all supported through a cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary approach.

LF-NA

-26

35

7-E

N-N

European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e ... · European Hospital Survey: Benchmarking Deployment of e-Health ... With the aim to benchmark the level of eHealth use

Documents